Neiska

A fair point, as well as true I suspect. I feel it's a safe bet to say there have been more changes that were requested, than changes that were not. But that would be quite a lot of data-digging and forum-scavenging to find out either way.

Oh, most assuredly. My point of disagreement was the insinuation that most people asked for change and supported said changes. Given that the majority are silent on the matter (here in the forums and discord), this is false, as well as moot. Someone cannot say more people Supported a change, any more than I might say more people opposed a change, simply because the majority of players have not weighed in either way on the subject in question. As an example, in the Masterminds channel there is 9026 users. After scrolling back 4 weeks I counted roughly 52 different users, or .5%. I didn't even go into what was being discussed, but even if we assumed that every user in the past month of that channel supposed a change, that is less than 1%, at least of the Discord users. Though this doesn't take into account ex-players or people who no longer play but whom are still in the channel, but nor does it take into account players who play but don't use the discord. I suppose the TLDR is that we simply don't have enough data or poof to say anything with certainty, one way or another. I do want to add I am not saying there should be no change at all either. Only that the point "most people liked X change" should not be used, for "any" change.

And here is a picture of the present -

First off, with about 20 Robot MMs fully T3'd or T4'd, and having soloed most of what is possible to solo as a Robot MM, I think I have a pretty good grasp on game mechanics. If you actually read my comments both here and elsewhere, my point never was or is about the before or after, or the change to their DPS. My input has always entirely been about how many powers are available in a build. My objection was never about their DPS. But I will try to elaborate. You have 24 power slots, and 64 enhancement slots available to put where you like. You loose 5 power slots taking the 3 pets and 2 upgrade powers, which leaves 19. You have 1 obligatory secondary power. That leaves 18. Most builds take toughness and Weave, which requires boxing or kick. This leaves 15. Now lets say you want group fly, that takes 3 power picks. This leaves 12. Now lets say you want fold space, down to 9. Now you need Leadership, most take Maneuvers, Tactics, and Vengance. Down to 6. Now you want Haste. Down to 5. This means you have 5 power slots to use, on your secondary AND personal attacks. And this isn't even getting into slotting. My complaint isn't about DPS, and it never was. It is about the limited number of powers in a build. Robots already was pretty tight on slotting, with the lack of a mule power. But now if you want -regen you have to give up already too few power slots in order to include them, as well as the slotting for things like +ACC or END reduction. MMs will never be top shelf DPS, and I don't think they were ever meant to be. Though some can certainly do good or even impressive DPS for a support class, my point is that it is mainly a support class, and this new remake limits the options they have to you know, support. If you want to be kiss-your-elbow top DPS, you might be better off playing something else.

I agree, how many and when are irrelevant, as is the point Astralock was trying to make with the "people asked for this." People asked for many things. Some get worked on, some do not. Its entirely up to the Devs, and IMO, they don't have to validate to us which projects they do or don't work on, but that's just my opinion.

Right then, a few thoughts. 1. "People asked for X" - This is a moot point. How many people? When? On which change? How many people liked it and how many people didn't? Considering that less than half of the people even use the forums and even less use the discord, lets have some fun with math. (pretext: these figures are by no means accurate and are entirely therotical but I am using them to make a point.) Lets be generous and say that 40% of players use the forums. I doubt its even that high, but lets go with that. And lets use a pool of 1000 people for context. 1000 people = 400 people using the forums. Now on any given change, perhaps 1/4th of those people might chime in either for or against it. So that brings us down to 100. Out of those 100, a change seems to be about 50/50 for and against. Some voices are louder than others certainly. But this is just painting a picture for context. This leaves an entirely theoretical 50 out of 1000 people, are openly requesting and supporting a change. I would hardly call 1/20th a validation or a "majority." 2. Robots only "sucked" if you had "moar DPS" tunnel vision. If they were so terrible, why were they one of the most popular MMs played? They were just behind Demons and Thugs for popularity. They were quite strong in support, as a single Robots/Time MM could softcap everyones DEF entirely by themselves, bring a bit of AoE, and some -regen to boot. The notion that the new robots is a 100% improvement for all builds across the board is false. My own Demons and Thug MMs still do more damage than my Robots does, while I lost the built in -regen tool. And forgive me if I don't choose the honor of using precious power picks on -regen, when I can get more mileage out of things like Group Fly, Fold Space, Leadership, particularly on a AT that has a damage and END penalty to personal attacks. The robots remake didn't make them "better," it only gave them something to do. Personally the only upside to the new Robots is the built in heal, which is quite nice for sets like Cold or Sonic. I am not trying to be argumentative or confrontational Astralock, truly. But I do resent the notion that all changes were good, that all were requested by the community, or that everyone likes them. Now I hope we mutually agree that some change is better than no change at all, but it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend for a moment that all of these updates are even popular. (It varies from change to change, as well they should.) But for a growing part of the community, they are starting to dislike more than like changes the more we recieve. For the record, I would appreciate a boost to those who enjoy single player activities the most, and not just a single AT. Because the gap between single player and team play only keeps growing, in particular with regards to the changes in farming. But that is a discussion that's been done to death. I only mention what I would personally like to see, if anyone cared.

Hello again Cobalt, I would like to point something out though. It is fine, even very admirable to say "the door is open and we have seats at the table." The thing is though, that ship has already sailed for some. Simply because many who post a differing opinion here in the normal forums is dogpiled, downvoted, or insulted. (but to be fair, both sides in any issue is guilty of all of those things.) As an example I fully expect the usual suspects to downvote this post without even reading my full thoughts or reply here. And after my one and only attempt at taking part in the Beta for my favorite powerset in the game, I most certainly won't be offering my thoughts on a change again, much less share the "ideas table" with the same people. But my point is, is you are more or less asking people to get into a pool filled with sharks. I mean, just how welcoming do you think that would be to those like myself who often have a differing opinion than what is touted as popular? I can't imagine that environment is any better than here in the normal forums, I would expect it to be worse. Speaking purely for myself, I fully expect if I were to take part in the "ideas" discord, there would be eyerolling from some, and downvotes from others. I imagine some would trip over one another to refute or disprove any suggestion or idea I might have, regardless on what that topic is, or what my opinion might be on it. I mean, I have had posts downvoted when I did nothing but thank another player. Perhaps you haven't seen it, but "that" is the level it's gotten to. If what I had to say or thought on any given issue wasn't respected here then why would it be any different there? I even offered an olive branch, and as of yet still seem uncertain if they are willing to live and let live. Our input might be seen and measured by you the staff, and I thank you for that. For the consideration, even if the reply is a simple "no" or "we want to go a different way." Just knowing that a different opinion was seen and considered is enough for most. It's just the silence we see that can be so frustrating at times. I do admire the staff and all you do, and all the time spent. Even if its features I don't personally like or activities I don't enjoy. Because a dead server is far far worse. A game where there is no advancement, development, grows stagnant and people go elsewhere. And I don't think any of you are bad people. Or even think that those I often disagree with here are bad people. Only passionate about what they care about, and sometimes rude. But I can live with that. But I most certainly won't be collaborating with them if they neither respect me as a person nor my opinion on upcoming changes. Best wishes

Honestly I was thinking more like 10-15 or so minutes, not seconds or even a few minutes. Purely my own personal opinion here but if someone is afk 10-15 mins then perhaps they could log out. I am not saying a booter every 2-3 mins.

Oh I agree that it is likely a small part of the community that might be causing issues. And I do know you weren't accusing me of anything but I appreciate the confirmation. I do wonder though if an "farming boot timer" is an option, if its the "mega afk farmers" that's causing the majority of the problems. I have little knowledge in that, but I assume such a boot timer may not be able to tell the difference between keystrokes and/or autocasted powers. I mean, we have boot timers now outside of missions do we not? I do wonder how difficult it might be to tweak it to help with this issue in some way. I can't speak if it would or would not. I mean, even when I 3 box, I have to alt+tab over to them and pilot them at least once a minute, either to help heal, pop a rebuff, use an incarnate power, and tab back. Even my afk'ers arent 100% fully "afk." But I lack the scripting skills to know if a boot timer could tell the difference between that, and by an auto-casted AOE going off every 30 seconds. But that's just me musing.

Yes, and I understand where that argument is coming from, reducing the amount of money going into the economy. First I will repeat my earlier question since it seemed to have gone under the radar - are non-money rewards doing non-ae activities, taken into account when balancing the rewards of each activities? Merits, Salvage, Badges, Accolades, Titles, etc? Or was it a strict money gained vs money gained comparison and adjustment? Secondly, I think one thing might have escaped the staff when adjusting different activities - you took a straight 1 vs 1 comparison of an activity and made adjustments accordingly, but what may have escaped your consideration is the number of players doing each activity. As an example (using purely theoretical numbers here) - 1 person farms for an hour and makes 100m Inf, vs 8 people running ITF's for an hour and each makes 25m, "creating" 200m Inf in total, not counting the other non-money rewards they might accumulate. Now these numbers are entirely theoretical, but I am using them to try and illustrate my point. I would argue, that if you are considering the balancing of rewards per activities, vs the amount of money being created, that the ITF's make more "In total", but not "per player." HC is simultaneously trying to balance both the wealth being "created" as well as the "balance" awarded for doing each activity, but that is a multi-sided problem. There are far more non-farmers than there are farmers. I truly do appreciate the forethought going into protecting the in-game economy from the staff and steps taken to slow inflation. But I think the actions that were taken might have missed a few important factors, such as non-money rewards as well as the number of people who do each activity, as well as for how long. Taking X (money gain in AE) and comparing that against Y (money gain in non-AE) and balancing rewards around that alone, exempts many things as suggested above.

But that is only "money." Non-AE activities can earn many things that isn't "money." And I didn't see a single whiff of conversation about that. I would consider guaranteed epic salvage, merits, badges, titles, accolades, all those things you can't just buy as "rewards" as well. But AE gets none of those things, and I am not saying that they in any way should. Only that they should be considered when calculating different rewards for different activities, and I don't think that they were, but they should have been. If you wanted all activities to be "roughly equal." I am not saying that AE needs to be boosted back, or even that non-AE needs to be reduced. I am just suggesting that the non-money rewards were not considered during all this fine-tuning of different activities rewards.

But your question didn't say anything about generation, only if it was the undisputed best method numerically? If you measure it as inf gained (by the player) per time doing X activity, then roleplaying as a market NPC is the way to go, if a player wants to get rich. I would also submit that farmers like myself suffer from alt-itis, so while we might "create" a lot of inf into a market, we are also likely the biggest consumers of it as well. Though (again personally here) with it taking more time and earning less, it is less incentive to have fun experimenting with new powers, alts, and builds than before. But I wouldn't be surprised if was the same for others.

Your first question - - No, it isn't. I would put forth "market simulator" is the undisputed king, if sole wealth is your objective. You don't even need to fight things, go on missions to be absurdly wealthy. I also submit that is likely the least enjoyed playstyle. But what farmers earn per hour is chump change compared to what some of those market-players do. One acquaintance of mine manages 3 accounts with auctions on each one. If she isn't selling 100+ purples a day, she considers it a slow day. Here is a picture she once sent me as an example of what one of her accounts looks like - Your second question - - "Massive?" Leaving aside what different people consider "massive", I would say it's on roughly equal footing with other activities. It can very greatly. The biggest impact is "how" one farms, and for how long. If you passively afk farm on one account? No, that is actually a pretty slow way to earn money now. Actively farming? Varies with speed. I think a big part of the contention with the AE changes specifically is that the change affected all kinds of farming, when not all of them were equal to begin with. Small concern to the non-farmers I expect, but to the farming community it was a pretty big change depending on what worked, and what now did not. But I would like to add that from the farmers point of view, the non-farmers were compensated in other ways - Badges, Titles, Accolades, even random guaranteed incarnate salvage, merits, things you can't "buy" with mere INF. To the farmers, that was the compensation for non-AE activities. But now, non-farming gets all that, along with equal money, and the new cosmetic salvage as well. So if you are talking about options and rewards, the non-farming is now rewarded more than farming, and already was to begin with in all ways of different player rewards "except" inf. Your third question - - Still accessible? Yes. But it feels like all the different farmers were put into the same pile. Take my example, I enjoy 3 boxing MMs to farm. The AI change made the farms faster, but the changes made it more difficult. I have yet to try now with the recent MM changes. Now even though I "active" farm, my "afk" farmers were still penalized, despite "playing" an active character. My personal addition - Ironically, in an effort to balance the different actives, to some you made farming more necessary, not less necessary. Again, using myself as an example, my main enjoyment comes from making alts, leveling them up, kitting them out, and taking them for a spin. So usually, I have 2 farmers with one alt getting leveled. Now before, I might make 250k or so when that alt reached 50. A good jump on getting fully slotted. So I usually planned to spend about 400k on a new alt, as 650k is a good ballpark average figure for enhancement cost. Some are more, others are less. However, now I make less money, and it takes more time. So now I have to spend roughly 1/3rd longer time to level that alt to 50, while at the same time, earning less money to do so. So in effect, I now need to farm even more just to take a character I wanted to try for a spin. Now for people like myself who enjoy that sort of activity the most, I am not "encouraged" to do non-AE things. In fact, due to the conversations on the forums, I am inclined to team with randoms, offer free spots on my farms, and run ITF's even less. Which I suspect is the opposite intended result. Before I might have volunteered to help out, or play healer, or whatever a team needed. Now with it suddenly taking almost an entire day longer to enjoy my own activities, I have less free "hobby time" to do random things on impulse. And I don't mind saying that when the EMP merits were talked about getting removed, well that made my heart leap into my throat, as that is more or less the only way I can earn Incarnate powers. And as a pretext to those who say "but you don't need incarnate powers" then I would encourage those people to try playing an MM at +4/8 difficulty without the pet level shift. It isn't fun at all. So I would argue that there is a "need" for incarnate powers in any 50 content. This has been my personal experience thus far. I don't make any claim to speak for anyone but myself. Only hoping to answer some questions and hope it might help in some way.

Hello Cobalt, Tone of voice can be difficult to convey entirely though text, so I shall try to be as respectful, eloquent, and precise with my reply, but I would like to speak about this quoted part specifically. For some of us, we have done just as you prescribed. Something akin to "I enjoy X part of the game. This change damages/reduces/harms that part of the game" and it seemed to go unnoticed or unheard. I am not claiming that it did, but the lack of re-redress or response to such voiced concerns can lead to it be seen as received in the very same manner as your first example of giving feedback. If we receive no reply no matter how we frame the critique then how are we to know it was seen and given thought at all? Speaking personally for a moment, I joined CoH about 6 months after it's public return. And virtually every change that I have spoken up about, more or less has gone the exact opposite. I was against the RoP change. I was against the many AE changes. I was also against some Powerset changes. All for reasons that need not be elaborated on here. Now do I expect the staff to take my "personal" feedback as gospel and cater to my every whim? Certainly not. But the fact of the matter is, is that I am hardly alone. There are many who are in the exact same circumstance as myself. Which leads that the same people either for or against any given change or update, always seems to go "their" way. Which can then lead to all kinds of suspicions of favoritism and bias, or even the thought of the "whose" feedback is far more important than "what" that feedback even is. The simple fact of the matter is, is that there are more people who only learn of a change during the final testing, than during the brainstorming stage. So many of us only get to give any input after the decisions have already been made, the question is just "how much." And for the majority who don't even use the forums, they don't learn of a change until it actually happens. As recent example, the last time I was on I was still seeing people asking what happened to AE in Atlas. Lastly I would like to share my last experience with you. I will leave names unmentioned but I do have screenshots of the incident. But to summarize, I voiced my concerns in a respectful manner over a particular change. As usual, the debate became passionate and heated on both sides. But the only comment from any staff member on the topic, was a mocking comment in the discord. Suffice to say, I took that a bit personal. And I was suitably distressed enough that I will no longer voice my thoughts on any given issue, even if asked. Because A.) it matters none whatsoever one way or another not only if I give my thoughts on it, but even also if I am even for or against the change in question, as well as B.) I don't care to be mocked not only by staff, but by other players who have a different opinion from my own. I will admit that I, myself did add fuel to the fire, so I claim no sort of better nature. It happens, we are all humans here. But to me the Staff members conduct was unacceptable. I took enough offense to it that to this day I have not logged into HC. A ticket was submitted, and I did speak to a different staff member about it, but I have yet to receive any sort of apology. And at this point I don't really expect to. To summarize, and speaking only for myself here, I won't voice my thoughts on any matter in question one way or another. Because it doesn't matter if I do or not, and at least if I don't then I won't be jaded and mocked for it. And I am not sure if I will even continue to play HC, but more because of the actions of the staff than any change itself. When you are mocked by the staff for your input, even when specifically asked for, it certainly puts things into a different light. Again, nothing in this reply is meant to be insulting or disrespectful. But it would be disingenuous to present this issue as only coming from one group of players. Best wishes. To you and all of the staff.

No, but "Demanding" other players play in certain ways certainly might.

When did I ever say it was the farmers? You assumed that. I said "parts of the community." So that one is on you. Secondly, if you go back to only this topic and read the various posts, you will see a clear "us vs them" mentality in this single topic. You don't have to take my word for it, it's quite plainly there. Thirdly, I find we have don't have anything further to discuss nor common ground to share. And as you seem keen on being belittling and antagonistic, perhaps it is best we do not communicate further. And I believe I will take steps to ensure such. If you don't like what I have to say, then I suggest you do the same.

Page 6 - -Will include a timer that if you don't complete a weekly mandatory ITF you will be banned for 72 hours. Excessive times getting banned will result in a permaban. - Powersets that are popular will be nerfed. Not because they are too strong, just too popular. -ATs rarely played will be nerfed. Not because they are too strong, only because so few people play them what's the point in having them.

This post may have been made in jest, but at this juncture I wouldn't be surprised in the least if S/L farming was next on the nerf/adjust/rebalance/whatever terminology one cares to put on it. Followed by a cooldown on how many AE missions someone can que for in a time period, then another reduction in exp/inf gain, then further boosting to other non-AE activities until it reaches the point where playing AE solo will be the worst method of play. It would fit the pattern of change over the past few changes.

Case in point. I present a realistic concern by a part of the community, not just my own, and you make personal jibes. Considering how you were the one who said they don't care, I don't see why I should value your opinion on the matter, or your attempt at insults.

I think you missed my point hon. There are some (myself included) who no longer want to team with randoms, regardless of what that teaming might be. But not because of farming changes, but due to how the "other side" conducted themselves. I mean, think about it. How eager would you be to play with those who antagonized/insulted you? I do want to add that I make no claim nor insinuation that it was only the "nerf farm" side acting in such a manner either. But I would argue that how people (on both sides) are reacting to these changes are doing more division than the change itself. I even offered an olive branch and got mocked for it, so I am truly perplexed what some people expect or think we are headed. It's becoming an "us vs them" atmosphere, and in a community such as this, nobody wins in that scenario. Not "your side", not "the other side", and certainly not the staff.

Not trying to be snarky, but not everyone enjoys PI radios, or doing ITFs, or TOT, Hami, etc etc. For some people, roleplaying is their main activity. For others, playing the market. For others still, its AE, be it making/playing their own content, testing builds, farming, or simply enjoy playing alone. From the farmers perspective, it seems others are going "leave the AE or else." I am not saying thats what was said, only that is how it feels for some. And it keeps going back and forth, back and forth. But I ask you this - Let us pretend a moment, that the AE/farming explicitly vanished tomorrow. The hows/whys is irrelevant to my point. My point is, do you think for one moment that those farmers would then be eager to group up with the same folks whom they have been passionately engaged with here in the forms? Methinks not. I think such people who feel thusly, and especially with the reactions to voiced concerns, are far more likely to go "You know what? Heck with this." Myself included. If the AE was gone tomorrow, and it was "team or else" I can almost guarantee you, the majority of those whom feel slighted would pick "or else." And not only because of the change, but because of how the supporters of both sides have conducted themselves, here in the forums, in the discord, and ingame. And even pointing this out is met with derision from some corners, which I think suggests a far more serious issue than game mechanics changes.

My opinions on opinions is that they are very opinionated. But in my other opinion, that is a very nice hat.

I know tone of voice is difficult to convey via text, so I shall try to be as clear and concise as possible. But how do you expect one side or the other (both are guilty of it) by antagonizing responses such as this? I mean, what do you expect? Them to go "you know what, you are right?" or to just have the final word and let it feel as if someone won the argument? I am not trying to be antagonistic here, or confrontational. I am only using this as an example of what I mean in other posts. One side posts something, the other side more or less goes "QQ cry more yummy yummy tears" and then it just devolves from there. I hope that all of us, no matter where we stand on any issue/change/patch would agree that is a bad thing? I don't want that. I hope you don't either. I mean, this isn't a question that one side must yield or buckle here, both sides have to stop antagonizing one another. Or this is just going to continue, which I would argue could drive just as many people away as any topic of heated debate itself? Speaking only personally for myself here. But I am willing to ease up and disagree in a more respectful manner if others are willing to do the same.

+1, same for me hon. Out of a full friend list, I might see 4 or 5 people online on a Friday or Saturday night. We don't do TFs anymore, don't do story arcs anymore, don't even really hangout and chitchat anymore. And we used to do that stuff 3-4 times a week. But logging in and seeing an empty contact list is very depressing, and seeing more of those who remain say "I'm done" after each change slims that list down even more. I do want to say I don't suspect there is any single cause for this, or even the nerfs or changes are to expressly blame. I expect the causes to be multisided and varied, as with any group of people. I am just saying your situation is relatable.

Classes? I enjoyed History the most, specifically the Origins of Democracy as well as a class on different Empires throughout human history. Oh, game ATs? Well, there are many melee with charge-like abilities - Savage Melee, Electrical Melee, and Shield Defense all have a charge/teleport, and there is also a Leap Attack in the Jumping pool as well. You could have a Tanker, Scrapper, Brute, or even stalker. An Electric/Shield stalker is actually quite good. As far as buffing, well there are many classes that can buff. Defenders stand out in that, but Masterminds and Corruptors have access to similar powers if you want a different playstyle. The kind of buff desired is also important.