Neiska

Another thought that just occurred to me, isn't there different kinds/forms of PVP? You have open zone PVP, arena PVP, the old base-invasions, and I am not sure if legit dueling is a thing here. It might help clear the air if the people who speak both good or ill of PVP are clear on what kind of PVP they are on about.

First off, I am not a PVPr myself, but do support those who favor that gameplay. Not all of PVPr's are like that, in fact most are not. You are taking the extreme example and using that as a standard of what is average. Personally I have seen far worse here on the forums than any actions in-game by PVPr's. So by your standards, the point could be argued that we forum users are worse than either group. I would consider your attitude toward farmers, power levels, and other forms of gameplay you don't personably like as pretty aggressive. Context is important.

So, using my favorite play as an example. I started with 3 masterminds and 3 boxed them, with zero outside influence/mailed merits/etc. I have done story missions. As well as farming and AE. I have even gone GM and AV hunting. I would say that takes skill, is a risk, and a challenge. The challenge, risk, and skill is there. Just play a non-meta build with self imposed handicaps. Nothing stopping you from playing a Merc/FF MM from 1-50 entirely solo while performing the "iron man" challenge, that is, entirely 100% self found/crafted things only. You are certainly free to do that. The key difference here is while the option to do that sort of play already exists for you and everyone else, you want to "force" it onto everyone else. In truth the shutting down of live was more of a real world many-layered topic, far more to do with the real world economy much more than making your powers 20% more effective. And that particular issue is far too lengthy to give it its due credit here. But they can't. IOs simply made everyone more efficient or better, but it did not bridge the AT core features. Such as a Tankers/Brutes Taunting, A scrappers Crits, or a Stalkers stealth and commanded bonus damage, A blasters sheer offensive power, or a corruptors hybrid/personalized approach, and what have you. Many ATs can perform the same feats yes, but the "hows" vary greatly not only from class to class, but even among different primaries within those same classes. No IO or enhancement will suddenly give you a taunting aura. Or the ability to crit. Or the assisinate and domination powers, etc etc. You want more defined roles and less cross-hyrbrids, I get it. But that is going into the same design of other games such as "1 tanker, 1 healer, 3 DPS" which I think the majority of people do not want on all content. If you want that, you are certainly free to play with self imposed limitations. Gamers and Record setters do it all the time. But when you try to force that onto others, or try to display it as a better, superior, more "pure" form of the game, then you are going to have problems.

Or you know, go by live and let live? Let others enjoy what they like doing too? That's an option too?

Upsides: Drama. People to play with. Downsides: Drama. People you can't avoid.

And yet, somehow as if by magic, I can accomplish more by myself than with a team in some situations. I mean anyone with enough stealth can race to the end of most missions, take out the boss or click the glowy, and be in and out before a team finished the first few packs of mobs. Especially true in a multiboxing scenario. Ergo, Sandbox. And at this point you are arguing semantics.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I have said in other posts that I like the niches. Its good we have challenging content. I only take issue that some ATs aren't up to the task or are undesired. Please don't mistake that as a cry to nerf the hard modes. If I had it my way, the ATs that are struggling would be brought up to par, or were at least viable on the hardest difficulties. A tall request, I know, given we have an all-volunteer staff. But some of them stumble on plain +4/8 content as it is, let alone incarnate, ITFs and other activities. And I never stated farming was removed? I only pointed out that there were calls for its removal before on the forums. If I wasn't clear enough, then I ask your pardon. But I do hope that you agree that weaker ATs being looked at and updated would be a good thing, or do you think that 3 and 4 star hard modes should cater only to certain ATs?

Um, no. That isn't how that works. You see, if it was "specifically designed" to play with other people, then it would be mandatory, required, or the only option to advance. Obviously, it isn't. The fact that I can get everything you can on a team when entirely solo, proves your point invalid. There are team activities certainly, just as there are solo activities. More solo activities than there are team activities I might add. Tell me this, are there more "team required" things to do, or more things where "teaming is optional" things? And the point that someone can entirely solo the majority of those "team required" activities as well. You are using the "ye olde golden days" as stipulation to measure current play, and the game has gone through many, many changes since then, many of which you listed yourself. It doesn't matter what the game was, or used to be, because that isn't what it is now. This isn't live. This is Homecoming. It's a different ship, with a different crew, with a different voyage. Stop trying to make the game "ye olden bygone era." Because if we went by your metric, a great many things would be removed - ATs, Powersets, Missions, Content, etc. CoH is a "sandbox" game. Meaning you play as you like, do what you enjoy doing. This may or may not include teaming. And for a growing number of players, that is "not teaming," in part due to attitudes similar to yours - "MY way. No. No, you can't have fun. You aren't allowed to progress. You have to do it THIS way. I know they added options to do otherwise, but they were wrong!" all the while ignoring all the updates and changes made to change that. So stop using issue one as a sort of measuring stick to gauge the current game. That was over a decade ago. Almost two decades in fact. If the game was a living person, it would be old enough to vote now.

I wouldn't call that a good dynamic or something to reach for. And I multibox as well, and I think it would be much more difficult with 8 different MM players than 3 multiboxers. But Number Six said they were aware of it and that MM's in harder content are on the radar to get looked at, which is all many of us really wanted.

That is a fair point. I am only pointing out that the mechanics as the stand, really discourage some ATs over others which sort of goes against the entire rebalancing, class comparison, and so on. But you are right, people could kick you for not liking your costume if they wanted to. I am not saying that it is right or wrong, only that they can. Pretty much the only way to guaranteed to have a team to your liking is to lead one yourself.

Just as "you can team" doesn't mean "obligated to team." And call it a wild and crazy hunch that there are more people who solo than team, going to say your point is moot. You are trying to make this game into something that it isn't. "Massively multiplayer" doesn't mean "required to play together," it means "shared space," as in a virtual world. There are many, many, MMOs out that have absolutely nothing to do with being required to team up to do activities. No Mans Sky. Racing Games. Flying Simulator Games. Fighting Games. All of these games can be played together with other people across the world and have absolutely nothing to do with "teaming up." The reference to MMO means that many people can play it together, but not necessarily on the same team or activity. In fact most of them involve playing against other players. And just so there is no doubt, here is the definition - So please, stop trying to pitch the idea that CoH is some sort of "teaming required" game. Because it most certainly is not.

A 4 star what may I ask? And were you solo or on a team? But either way, good job.

Case in point.

You know, we both agreed on the ITF thing, until you had to add that snip at the end. But here, let me clue you in on the actual situation and conversations going on other non ITF content, as far as MMs are concerned. In short, it widens the gap between pet sets. What is good, and what is bad. It varies by primary. Beasts - for beasts, its a problem that they lack ranged attacks and chase down mobs, which in turn, aggros more mobs. Their lack of a constant attack cycle only expands this as they tend to pause a moment giving mobs more time to flee. Attempts at hold/immobilize are partially successful, but often a Boss or EB will make it to the next spawn and bring back their friends, in which case the Beast MM gets clobbered. Mercs - lol. Not even going to expand here. Undead - Simply put the undead lack enough CC oomph for harder content. Due to Mag mechanics as well as target caps, which are often exceeded by aggro caps. (meaning you are fighting more than you can CC.) Again, tactics and engagement can play a role here, but its easy to make a mistake and get overwhelmed and experience cascading failure in CC and defenses. Robots/Thugs/Demons - Seem to be able to handle the hardest non-ITF content well enough, using a variety of methods according to chosen primary. Ninjas - something of a mixed bag, depending. Some report its rough but doable, others say its been rough indeed. But this is one of the "glass cannon" pet sets, so that shouldn't surprise anyone. Now then, considering that we have far more experience than you do when it come's to masterminds, particularly when its all of us together, it is extremely likely that we know what we are talking about, as we actually you know, go and play the content we are speaking on. And in case reading isn't your strong point, I will highlight the topic of the thread I referenced - "ITF Hardmode" I think perhaps in your eagerness, you knee-jerked a reaction post. No one is stating that MMs can't do +4 content. Its ITFs and 3-4 star content, had you actually read the conversation I linked to you. I mean, I power farm with masterminds on +4 difficulty. I even posted a video and a guide. I have over 30 level 50 MMs, so I think I have a pretty good grasp about them. But hey, if you want to defend a point that no one suggested, then that's on you.

Thank you Flea. But I did state I am no PVPer, at most I cheer for my friends on the sidelines. I don't know what full attention they have or have not seen development wise, I only hear the gripes from those that are passionate about pvp. And since most of them seem to despise the forums (their words, not mine) I felt the need to at least make mention of it. Honestly if it was up to me I would organize it into seasons or something and keep track of wins/losses and so on. But pvp is not my realm of play.

First, its the ITF I am mainly referring to yes. But Trust you? No, I don't think I shall, thank you. Particularly with things like this - Pretty much all of the big names in the MM sub-community are saying the same things as I am here.

There is a difference between trivializing content, and trivializing classes. It isn't a matter of "turn down the difficulty." Personally I consider +2/8 as the "goal" and anything beyond that as a bonus/newgame+/extra mode, because nearly any build could do +2/8 with simple IO investment. It was a good benchmark. Now I enjoy playing on max difficulty myself, but I had already considered that the "hardmode" for some builds and setups. But there is making hard content, and then there is making content that discourages including certain playstyles, ATs, and so on. Now I am not expecting them to make it so a merc/empath MM can finish a 4 star, but they can certainly make a few tweaks so it isn't so "do or die" on 3-4 star difficulty too, which it currently is. But I do agree, people SHOULD have their niches and corners. So why is it then that the "we need nosebleed levels of difficulty" win out here, when other niches that have been asked for don't get their "niches," and when even other "niches" are penalized/changed/nerfed? For example, lets compare 4 star hardmode to AE farming - the farmers said "don't like it, then don't do it" and that was deemed unreasonable, and farming was changed. But now the 4 stars are going "don't like it, don't do it. And don't bring X/Y/Z AT's either, or just turn down the difficulty" and that's acceptable? Seems a bit paradoxical to me, that.

I find this very ironic coming from someone who was on the team when I joined and it was said "we don't want MMs." (At least I believe it was you ShadeKnight.) But I have run with you once before on Everlasting, on my Crabber. It was a pretty good run too, just got a little dicy in the Rom fight. But for MM's it isn't just "difficult." Its pretty much dark souls level for any MM, regardless of build. Clever engagement, tactics, or builds will not save you. The only time I was successful on a two star, was when people were pretty much cycling barrier every 30 seconds. And even then, some pets still got 1 shot. There has been ongoing talks in the discord, forums, and in game about this. It isn't a "l2p" or "gitgud" issue, and it's hardly unique to MMs. Also as you may or may not have seen for yourself, some ATs/players are being flat out turned away for their class. People want nice, clean, flawless runs. The majority of random's don't want to roll the dice on a sentinel, or a mastermind, or whatever. And they don't want to "carry" someone either. Until they fix things for those classes I've shelved my MMs at least as far as hardmodes go. Been focusing on my crabber because at least some teams still take them. They aren't top pick for sure, but they aren't bottom either. But at least they aren't excluded, at least not yet.

I continue to play several of my 50s even after they are fullly T4'd. My main is my Robot/Electric mastermind, with my main backup is my Crabber SoA. The MM is vet level 400, the Crabber is 100 or so. Most activities I do is Farms, run random PI missions, do random things with friends, badge hunt, sometimes playing Ouro missions, and so on. Personally I think there is more to do at 50 than in 1-49.

I think you may have taken my words out of context or missed my point. But I will clarify. For the majority of content, all content, its "play whatever you like, you can make anything work" which is what I love. Then in incarnate content, that begins to change where it is more difficult for some AT's than others. Again, I am fine with this, as balancing will be difficult in that kind of play. But hardmode is going back to the wow/other game design of "Tank, Healers, DPS" trinity. Which by and large I hope we all agree was a good thing CoH did not adopt or require in its game design. And I worry that continued changes will only expand this concept, until the game is no longer "play your way" as even in this current iteration, 5-6 ATs are already shunned. Granted it is new content and I do hope they address how not all ATs just aren't viable, but are completely unplayable in this new content, but I also worry that it will change the standard of "play your way." I already see posts in LFG daily for - "4 star team starting. LF3M. 1 Tank 2 Support wanted" and I would argue this is not a good direction to be going in. Hope that clears things up.

Submission - a few special cosmetic only rewards that can only be gained by other means. Costume 1 - only obtainable by buying with raw INF. 1 billion. The costume? A top hat, cane, and monocle, like the monopoly guy. Costume 2 - PVP only costume. A costume that can only be earned via pvp winnings or participation. The costume? No idea, whatever the pvpers might like. Big shoulder pads maybe? Emote 1 - "Make it rain" emote, bought with 1 billion inf. Emote 2 - Teabagging/tacodropping - earned through PVP "Stinky Cheese" aura - earned by getting X number of "thumbs down" reactions on forum posts.

Personally I am conflicted. I guess most times it depends on how they respond or ask. Someone asking "hey, may I change characters" I have no objection to. Some reply with a simple "me." But I do want to make mention that sometimes, depending on the activity, people might be in a rush to respond in an attempt to secure a place before the team fills, which can lead to some quickly written as well as amusing responses at times. But for me, it depends on how they ask. If they ask politely I will save their spot. If not, then I may or may not save it. It just all depends honestly. But that's just me.