Neiska

Oh, I am aware. But often enough suppressing might as well be dying. It depends on the circumstances. Not everyone has access to armor sets. Not everyone plays defenders. In my own example I used to play a hybrid widow, and I took RoP to shore up her resists because of how they worked. Low resists at high hitpoints, and high resists at low hitpoints. Good on paper, bad in practice, especially with no way to self heal. So what I did was juggle RoP and Barrier and try to slot for extra passive regen when soloing more difficult content. I also had RoP on my fire/time corruptor, mostly to shore up resists during tough spots and lack of other mezz protections as well. Point is, it depends on the build, as with any power or tool available, as well as player preferences too, as with anything. But to say "no one needs it" is incorrect, if someone wants that effect in a build, then they need it.

So, to clarify, he said "no one needs it" and I said "it depends on the build, that's your opinion" then asked for examples, and somehow, I am the one arguing semantics? Its fairly simple. If you require or want a power or tool in your build, then you "need" it.

Sure. Any AT that relies heavily on toggles that doesn't want them being de-activated when they are mezzed. But sure, lets go with your argument. Then no one needs fly. Want to hover-blast? Too bad! No one needs sprint. Want to get to your next mission quickly? Too bad! You can jog there. You want Power Boost? Too Bad! you don't needs that either. You want to heal without inspirations? Too Bad! Eat the green candy. Eat it! Don't want to die anytime you get mezzed? Too bad, no RoP for you. We have inspirations after all! Sure, you might run out, but them's the breaks. Should have found more! By your logic, no one "Needs" anything. You are just trying to argue semantics to win the disagreement. You gave your opinion. I gave mine.

Sure, But I would also want the merits/astrals/weekly rewards included as well, not just the inf/kill tally.

Doesn't feel like you understood what I meant by "opinion." 👍

Or perhaps they could stop putting pressure on people to do an activity they don't enjoy? And just leave them be playing the game how they like? Why isn't that an option? Not everyone want's to play what is being artificially encouraged. And those that don't feel punished for not doing so. It isn't a question of adapt, it feels like a "do this or else." And honestly, in the future I expect even more, well, lets call them creative measures to further entice/force/strongarm/bribe players into doing certain content.

Multilayered question. Yes, you can still "farm." You can still "afk farm" but will have to change how. You can still actively farm, but will earn less exp/inf. No, you cannot farm in the same method/build and earn the same inf/exp rate. Yes, what people used to earn has been reduced. I wouldn't say "taken" perhaps as that implies ownership, but to say "get over it" is a bit disheartening. I don't see this as a contest or race here, I see us as a community. And one part telling another part to effectively "stfu" is not only minimalizing, but pretty depressing as well.

And nor should you pound that one nail in, and then say you weren't out for that one nail. But please make no mistake, I am not claiming "nothing" should have been done. I just take a dim view on what was done. You could have adjusted it from both ends - lower AE a "little", raise non-AE a "little" to meet in the middle. Or raise non-AE. Or, you know, actually standardize "everything" regardless of activity, (but they won't do that one either.) IMO, they did what you said, the "no brainer" and took path of least resistance. I don't blame them for it, but I do arch an eyebrow when they take the path of least resistance, and then the atmosphere became "It wasn't a nerf, it was a fix. We aren't out for farmers we swear" when in the same patch, they made it a point to "encourage" non-AE activities. The players whose main activities was the AE, or even only the AE, will certainly feel slighted, and I don't think it should be a shock to anyone. But I guess they got what they wanted, I do see less AEs and Farms, but I also see less players as well. If you strongarm players into either playing non-AE content, or playing AE at a reduced rate, many will choose option 3 - playing something else, or even option 4 which I won't mention publically due to forum policy.

I bare you no ill will either, but I appreciate the clarification and sincerity. Not to put too fine a point on it, but yes, the rest of your post is pretty accurate. One part of the community feels lied to, or unwelcome. And it's got to the point that they won't speak up about it. As an example and speaking purely for myself here, but after the last beta I certainly will never participate in any beta again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. And I don't care to repeat the same actions and expect different results. While I do agree with your and other's points that Devs/HC staff have no reason to lie, at least none as far as I am aware, other's don't see it that way. And given how similar concerns were responded to when voiced, publicly both by Devs as well as other players, it sort of becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy. Can you not see that those who want to play AE as a primary activity or even perhaps as their only activity might take slight or even more staunch attitudes then? I mean, it quite literally is - 1. Group of players enjoying AE. 2. Devs make changes/fixes/adjustments to coax people out of AE, or make other activities equal to AE, but in doing so, AE earns less. 3. Said group of players then feels slighted, unwelcome, or unheard, and begin to have quiet conversations. 4. Devs saying they aren't against Farming. Another group of players on the forums agreeing. But that doesn't change the fact that the first group of players who were enjoying AE to begin with, earn less, or are unable to play in the same manner they did before. Calling a Rose by another name won't change the smell. Personally I generally disagree with reducing what one person had, in order to make other people more equal. You should just give the other people more, so the first person is unaffected either way, and that is not what has been happening.

(sorry double post.)

To play armchair philosopher a moment, some people were sad what other people could get/earn doing things they themselves didn't enjoy doing, and so complained enough that eventually that activity that had zero affect on them whatsoever was then reduced, more than once. Because some people just can't mind their own affairs and focus on themselves, and due to lack of outside achievement and the absence of a sense of self-worth can only attain it by comparing themselves to others and what they have achieved.

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.