Neiska

That is your mere opinion. For those people who like to build offensively and juggle RoP and Barrier, I would say it is certainly a nice option to have. It depends on the build. Some builds could "need" it, certainly.

I will let you in on the conversations being had elsewhere Sovera. In some circles people have pointed out a few things - 1. The AE EXP has been adjusted prior to the change in reference here. 2. Some people believe that, well, that "it was a bug" is simply a fabrication. It's not as if they didn't have a look at the code before, and the question remains if it was set to the "original" value and then "fixed," or if the fix was implement after the EXP had already been reduced, which in effect would reduce it twice. And given the knee-jerk reactions here in the forums that some people have, that conversation has never really taken place. In fact I expect multiple "thumbs down" posts for even mentioning what other people are thinking. I neither agree nor disagree with such notions, as I don't have access to the data myself. But there are some who believe it was just an excuse to further reduce farming exp, without it publicly seeming like a nerf, so the premise of "we aren't against farming" could remain. Again for clarification, I don't agree or disagree with their assertations. I am only reporting what other people are suspecting.

Have to disagree with this statement, because it suggests that all devs have all said the same things, which they have not either ingame, in the discord, or here in the forums. Some most certainly want to see it gone. Others seem more to live and let live. Going by the changes a sort of compromise has been reached that made afk farming more difficult (but not impossible to do, but certainly slower) but has mixed results with active or multibox farming. But to say that all devs are fine with all farming is a bit disingenuous, but given the passion around the topic itself from both sides it can certainly be excused. Speaking personally, the more changes they make, the less enjoyment I find myself having. 1. The roleplay scene has certainly stagnated and a good chunk of the role-players have been driven away or left for greener pastures. I am not saying this is the fault of the devs or any of the changes, only the state of affairs. But to some people here on the forums who shall remain nameless who were quite publicly outspoken against roleplay in the past, I imagine they are celebrating. 2. The more changes are made, the less "play your way" environment it becomes. Some builds, playstyles, or activities are artificially "encouraged" either by dangling extra rewards, or flat out reducing others in order to seem like certain activities are more lucrative. I disagree with this, because at the heart of the matter is it goes against the soul of the game, "play your way." Well, I keep finding my own favored at's, powers, playstyles, and activities penalized/reduced more and more as time goes on. And if I don't like or enjoy an activity, I won't be bribed into doing it with a carrot on a stick, and it feels like a punishment for seeing my own favored activities rewards reduced less and less. And if that is the case, it makes me ponder just how "play your way" that Homecoming is. I have always said that HC is not COH, it's a different ship with a different crew and a different adventure in mind, and that is fair. However, at this point it is starting to feel there is so little meat of CoH left its nothing but bones, that HC is then using for their own vision, and its one I find myself enjoying less and less. Moreover, it makes me wonder just how truly popular a certain activity really was, if they have to effectively bribe players into doing it. 3. Lastly, the forums itself. From where I sit it is becoming largely two sides on any given issue, and often its the same groups of people as well. The "for" and "against" groups if you will. And more and more the "for" groups seem to "win" in any given context, and as a result more of the "against" people are simply leaving. I personally know 7 people who quit the game after this latest round of changes. Now that is a drop in the bucket some may say, which is true. But how many "drops" will it take for people to look around and go "where did everyone go?" Because the day will come when they wont make their donation goals, or they have to merge servers, or people will begin having difficulties filling teams. And the time to fix that is "now," not later "when that happens" because once a game is floundering it can be difficult to bring people back. But to one group of people, they seem to actually "want" that as they certainly seem rather keen to remove/punish any element or playstyle they don't personally enjoy. My musings on the matter.

Still completely ignoring personal attacks.

Got a few DMs about this, and I intend on keeping my builds largely the same. Remove a few KD-KB and the like, but still, surprise, surprise dislike the change and already feel the (achm) "non-nerf". I am just glad my main is EA, already noticed an END pinch for the pets with other secondaries.

I prefer to self-moderate, be it ignore, no longer caring about their input, "data" or opinion. Take your pick. But letting people rant does sometimes help you decide which box to put them in.

By this I assume you believe that I have not already attempted such? I won't be citing names due to forum policy. But it went something like this - "Hey, MM here, can I come? Full t4's and everything. I also have a few nukes that I can bring." "We don't want any MM's." "Okay." *changes to my tanker* "Hey, I can come, only T3'd here and I am a Bio/EM tanker." *gets immediately invited.* That's how it usually goes.

I too, play on Everlasting. And I have only completed 2 stars, but not on my MM, on my Crabbermind SoA. I have yet to complete any of the new difficulties on a MM, and have been told "we don't want an MM" on several occasions, enough that it's gotten to the point I have stopped asking or even expecting. Your personal experience is not the atypical one, but I would also add neither is mine. But it is common enough that there was a thread about it. Some MM's have participated and even completed 4 star hardmodes, but I would call them the exception rather than the norm. The majority of teams I have seen are Tankers, Defenders, Blasters, controllers, and Dominators. I have yet to see a Widow, Sentinel, Stalker Warshade/Peacebringer on a team. I do see a few Brutes and Scrappers but not as many as the others.

If by "fine" you mean either rejected or removed from teams just for being a mastermind then I agree.

First off, I don't claim to speak or represent any group of players. This is merely my own opinions and musings, and repeating the conversations I have had with others ingame, in discord, or here on the forums. My point is, is that people who are against change, including but not limited to - the "ye olden times" veterans, people who simply don't like a change, people who might have been in the beta but was against proposed changes, etc - might feel marginalized, for any number of reasons. 1.) As I believe you yourself pointed out, they might not have been involved with the beta. So the first beta feedbacks might be the first time such persons are even made aware of possible changes, they might feel unheard. Now, as yourself pointed out beta is open, not everyone participates in beta either. I am only remarking that once feedbacks are asked for, more often than not changes happen in some form or another. Not "always," but often. 2.) Once things are posted in the beta, the conversations on what should change, how, and so on have already occurred. For those coming in late to the conversation, they speak on matters already progressed past that point. In a sense, they are echoing talking points that might have already occurred, are they not? 3.) Not every player even uses the forums. I mean, how often have we heard ingame "where is the atlas AE building" in chat. For some players who don't use the forms at all, and aren't even aware of changes until they go live, such things might be blindsiding them. 4.) Then of course, there are players who are against any particular change, speak about it, and the change occurs anyway. If this happens often enough, they might feel that their opinions don't matter one way or another, as things happened irrelevant to their particular input on the matter in question. I am not saying these are factual. I am only highlighting the other side of the conversation. Because, just as those in beta have conversations that others are not involved in, so too do other conversations occur that the beta testers, alpha testers, staff and so on are not privy to either. I am not saying this IS or IS NOT happening. I am only saying this is what such persons think/feel/believe is happening. Some of it I agree with, and some I do not. I am only saying how some people I have spoken to feel on the matter. Many of which state they won't post such on the forums, given how some "naysayers" are reacted to. One person cited the AE farm change discussion as an example why they won't speak out/against, about anything. TLDR - My point is, is that there are people who, rightly or wrongly, feel their input doesn't matter. From any number of groups. And saying "get involved with the beta" won't change their perception either way.

Thank you for proving my point regarding the perception of the "cool kids" and "everyone else." I was unaware that only the past 24 weeks mattered with regard to player retention, out of 3 years of being open. That is akin to taking the entire course of recorded human history, zero focusing on a 200 year time period, and basing all of it off that small fraction of time. And this is also neglecting the fact that it is possible (and also impossible to prove or disprove) that we might have kept more and lost less had some changes gone a different way. I am not claiming this is the case, but it certainly is a possibility. And this isn't a "the sky is falling" post. This is merely me pointing out that perhaps things could have gone better, and that regardless no matter what change or if there is change at all, a portion of the player base will feel neglected or slighted.

And yet, you seem to have forgotten the category of player I omitted on purpose. The people who came to play "City of Heroes," not "a heavily modded CoH server." You see, regardless of the actual changes, the more changes there are, the smaller is the part of the community that will be happy with them. For the people who came to play "City of Heroes" - the more changes there are, the worse it's becoming. And for the rest of the people, likely its win some, loose some. I doubt the majority of players approved of "all" changes, but there is certainly a community that has been against the majority of them, if not "all." And the saying "the more things change, the more the stay the same" no longer applies. Now while we do have to come to terms with no matter what the staff does, change or no change, they can't please everyone. So they do the best they can. Personally, I am fine with fine tuning and rebalancing, even adding entirely new sets as well. But not completely redesigning ATs, Powers, or Sets, namely because for those who come for "City of Heroes" have no options once the things they like are changed or gone. And while we can't cite this expressly the reason for the drop in player count, which in itself all its own topic far too big and complicated to give its due here, I do believe that it would be intellectually dishonest to handwave excessive changes to what was already established within the game had little part in that. And at what point does HC becomes more dissimilar from City of Heroes, than Similar? For some, we have already passed that exit about 10 miles back. For others, we have yet to get there. And neither view is wrong or incorrect. But I would put forth that the people who came to play the City of Heroes they remembered are largely the losers here, no matter any way you slice it. And for clarification, I am not one of the "Veterans of ye olden times," as I never played Live. I am only pointing out that the people who wanted Homecoming to be more resemble COH than change seem to have been missed out entirely in the conversation.

Possibly because some might take that and believe that a staff member mocking critics as an implication, or wonder if a staff member can mock such players in a public forum more astute persons might wonder what is then said in a more private setting. Personally though? I had a chuckle.

Not to get too off topic, as this was being discussed in other posts. But the short version of it is, is there are some people whom feel the same group of people who push for some changes seem to get it, while others who do the same do not. I hesitate to use the words favoritism or bias, because A) we only see half the picture and not the whole, B) there are many, many of us, and precious few staff members. So addressing each and every person 1 by 1 would be a full time job, and isn't realistic in expectations. C) Having once been a staff member elsewhere in a similar environment, I will say even if there is no bias there will always be the suspicion and is difficult to disapprove once that atmosphere sets in. In short, after speaking to others there is a part of the community that said it feels to some that the "pro-endgame teaming" folks are the ones who seem to push for change and get it. Not the farmers, not the casuals, not the role-players, not the solo-ists, and not the die hard pvp'ers. Some have said even some ATs seem to be favored over others. I would like to clarify that I am not stating there "is" bias, only the perception of it, and I expect that perception to grow unless it's specifically addressed. And I am not making any of the above claims, I am only reporting what my discussions with others have said or felt about the recent changes. Personally I sort of see it both ways, they need not be exclusive of one another. Some people's opinion certainly seems to carry more weight than others, at least here in the open forums. I cannot speak to the beta or alpha groups, as I am not a part of them. One thing I would like to especially highlight though is that people who are involved in such groups stating "there is no bias" only further show such bias, at least to some peoples view who are not a part of said groups. TLDR - There is a growing perception of "the cool kids table," and the perceived members of the "cool kids table" saying there is not a cool kids table, does little to persuade others otherwise. In fact the supposed "cool kids" saying there is no cool kids, only further confirms it, at least to some people.

Two thoughts. The first, is that more than any other change, how people disagree here, ingame, and the forums has done more to discourage me than any change itself. Now, yes, it is the internet. People are going to people sometimes. But I had hoped that our smaller community might be above that. Alas that doesn't seem to be the case. To me its a mix of various things, being miscommunication, lack of empathy, or just plain ego. Perhaps that last one especially in some cases. "Some" player requests. Most certainly not "all players." And "some" requests seem to be implemented, but the majority have not. I do hasten to add that I think we both agree that it's a good thing that not every request is implemented, as well, it would be quite the circus I expect. But from where I sit, it seems only "one side" of the fence seems to get the changes they want. I mean as an example, what if an argument was made to made to have to earn costume pieces/parts again? Or pay upkeep on bases? Or to actually make farms better instead of worse? I expect half the community would dislike those changes. As with any change. But let's not pretend that every change has been welcomed by the entire community with open arm's shall we? For me, I have liked and disliked the changes about 50/50. I liked some of them, eye rolled at a few others. And a few really had me wonder what the heck they were thinking. And in my view, the server seems to be leading harder and harder in one direction, which I do not consider a good thing. And if history and other games are anything to go by, then I expect it to continue to do so.

@Snarky - My hot take on things. If you are an afk farmer then yes some of the changes make it more difficult, and I suspect this was by design. The AI wont sit and twiddle its thumbs waiting for its turn to be bonked anymore, now if your aggro list is full, they won't ignore you, they will use ranged attacks. So no longer is softcapping DEF and RES enough to afk farm, now you have to put in enough passive regen/ranged def as well if you want to be 100% automated. It's still possible sure but have to build differently. However, for some farming setups, this change in AI actually made farming faster, especially with Mastermind farming where the point is to fight as many things as you can at a time. So if mobs run to your pets more that means you spend less time chasing things down. So the AI change shaved about 20-30 seconds off my farms. The EXP in AE, well, it's been adjusted 2 or 3 times now. (I think?) So if you are comparing what you get now to what we got 2 years ago, it will definitely feel slower. But what I suspect you are experiencing is the "how" exp is awarded. Details fail me (haven't had my morning coffee yet) but I seem to recall that the enemies powers affect the EXP awarded. You can't just load up an AE full of critters with Blargh powers and expect full exp. Now you need to give them actual legit powers. I can't recall seeing this in the patch notes, but this is what those of us farmers were discussing in the super secret forbidden discord that totally doesn't exist. So you may want to remake a map with updated enemies and try again. Again, I can't remember where this information originated from, but the scuttlebutt is that old maps award inferior EXP compared to ones remade after the latest round of rebalancing. Hope this helps hon. Stay Snarky.

With respect, if I was held at gunpoint to my head and was forced to choose, I would sooner have a yeast infection. But not because of anything related to HC, the staff, or any of the testers. But because I have been in a similar circumstance before. Another game, another time, etc. On more than one game I might add. And I am quite well aware of the shenanigans, tom-foolery, drama, and absolute buck-wild "What in Sam Hill" things can run amok there. Seriously, its absolutely nuts what can go on, makes the Wild Wild West look like Mr rogers by comparison. And I want absolutely no part in any of that. If I wanted to be a tester personally, I would have asked about such.

I have to respectfully but whole heartedly disagree. My associates and I even have a name for them. "The Council." If you think I am the only one who believes and feels this way, you are sorely mistaken.

Overall your response is a fair and respectful one, so thank you for that. But this part right here is the crux of the issue. It doesn't matter if they take my "personal" feedback the same as others or not in the grand scheme of things or not. My point is that they have been giving more weight to the same group of people - the alpha testers - I suspect without ever changing such alpha testers. And I think the reaction to the notion of perhaps they change up some of the alpha testers will say far more about them than the alpha/beta process itself. Personally? I expect the pitchforks and torches to be lit. Which is sort of amusing when you think of it, the idea that perhaps they could use other peoples thoughts, views, and opinions instead of the same people they have for several years now would indicate they might care more about their status/inner circle than any notion of free, unbiased testing or ideas.

Whoever said we don't need testers? Certainly not I. But you see, what companies do in the real world, is they swap out or change "testers", just to prevent bias from personal acquaintance and regularity. Being experienced doesn't mean you have good ideas. Or that your math can favor one thing or another.

Here's my unfocused feedback. I too was once a staff member for a private server for nearly 10 years for another game. (Neverwinter nights 2 if anyone is wondering.) Long story short - Over time our Dev team grew an "inner circle" of friends/acquaintances/special people who would form the unofficial "development team." In a sense, it was a group of people they personally knew apart from the unwashed masses whose input on changes carried more weight than anyone else's, simply because they "knew" those making the changes. But what this led to is a small handful of people who were not a part of the staff, having far more influence on server changes. But not just game mechanic changes, but server policies as well. The point to all this is such an environment contributed to my decision to leave. And I believe if we aren't in a similar situation, then it is growing into one. Because if you go back and look through all the changes that have come to pass over 3 years recorded here in the forums, you might notice a pattern. I won't elaborate more than that due to forum policy. But people are certainly free to look for themselves. I do want to highlight that I am not claiming this is the actual situation. Only similarities that I have noticed after spending quite a bit of time after this last Beta and spending a few hours combing the forums and looking for "trends" in "feedback" and the actual changes that have been implemented. TLDR - Not a provable claim, but it is certainly beginning to feel like not everyone's feedback is equally weighed and valued, which can lead to people assuming some very bad things, even if they are utterly untrue. I am not saying this IS the case here, but it certainly is beginning to have the same atmosphere and vibe.

Not an odd combo at all. Demons/Electrical is one of the most durable MMs you can make.

@ScarySai Look, I think you are reading into things that I never stated or said. Not once did I say the pet DPS wasn't enough, or good, or too good. If you go back and read every one of my posts, I have not once looked at the pets themselves. Because as you suggest, I couldn't offer insight either way realistically. Every one of my imputs has been from the building standpoint. Not a performance standpoint. Not once have I mentioned numbers, or specific performance. Every one of my feedback posts, has been what I have access to and knowledge of. I hope you would be fair in agreeing with me there, yes? I have made no claims either way about knowledge I have no access to. However, that said, From a building standpoint, this change does limit options. Not all secondaries have -regen built in. Not everyone plays Cold, Dark, or Traps. In fact most Robot MMs I see are Electric and Time. So from a building standpoint, as in picking powers and what the kit offers, I most certainly can disregard pet damage, as they have nothing to do with it. How much damage a pet does or doesn't do has zero impact on how many powers you can take, or how many slots you have. Which has been my point this entire time. That is to say, they are effectively making personal attacks more required on robot MMs, while at the same time penalizing you if you do not. Penalizing not in respect to damage, but into build and playstyle options when compaired to before. You want -regen? Well, you have to give up Haste, or Tough/Weave, or Tactics/Maneuvers, or Hover/Fly/Group Fly, or Teleport/Fold Space, and so on. And numbers won't change that either way. I do respect you and all the effort you put into this. Truely. But you aren't hearing what I am saying. I have not said anything at all about the pets themselves. You say the -regen is moot with the pet boost in damage. I say it is not, because its not the damage I am addressing, it's the number of powers available in a build, and options. And either way no matter what your numbers say, this will make Robotics which is already the tightest primary, even tighter, with regard to power picks and slotting. And no matter how much damage the pets do now, that isn't going to change. Hope this helps me make my point. In a respectful manner.

And you are talking to someone with over 30 t3 or t4 robot MMs specifically on 3 accounts with over 1000 net vet levels. Your experience doesn't trump mine, sorry. More ever, specifically in the beta forums rules it states not to let it descend into 1 on 1 bickering. You gave your opinion. I am certainly entitled to give mine in kind. Yes, they are. If someone wants to keep the same amount of -regen they had before, for whatever reason, they have to now spend 3 power slots to get it, before anything else. The damage the pets do is irrelevant in this regard. Those are 3 powers they could have spent on leadership pool, or fighting pool, or teleport pool. And not all secondaries have skippable powers either. Ergo, it is now a choice, between keeping the -regen in their toolkit and sacrificing 2-3 power picks elsewhere to keep it or giving up their main AV/GM/Elite Boss feature and take those other powers. So yes. Fewer build options, at least if you want to keep the same toolkit you had before. I don't know how you figure otherwise if people have to take more powers now than before in order to have the same tools they had. That means less options, if you want to keep the same toolkit. I mean, let's compare the MM set upgrades - Mercs - Overall net positive gain, lost nothing. Cooldowns reduced and even a stackable damage buff. Ninjas - Overall gain as well. No real loss. A similar stackable damage buff. Necro - Can now summon many more temp pets, and some enhancement type adjustments. Robots - You now have to pick other powers to keep the same debuffs, which is less optional powers in a build. And the Maintenance drone. Robots are the only one that had this "lateral promotion" if we want to call it that. In effect the set made the easy things easier, and the hard things harder. It increased pet DPS, at the cost of END, EPA, and pet END cost. I do want to add, it isn't all bad. There are some features and changes I like. But just that -regen move is a real punch in the gut to us AV/GM hunters.