nzer

I don't think anyone really cares. There are always a million people in LFG advertising farms, PI teams, or asking to sit. I personally wouldn't do it, just because exemplaring significantly below 32 destroys your enhancement bonuses. Depending on your powersets it can make going back for that content later pretty painful. But if you like doing it, more power to you.

At no point have I said or implied that you did. But I'm talking about the hypothetical scenario of it being added, and you're talking about the hypothetical scenario of it being added, so why on earth are you so surprised that I'm responding in the context of whether or not the AT should added? 90% of the posts in this topic are talking about why the AT should or shouldn't be added. It's okay for us to just... have the conversation we're very clearly having. The world isn't going to explode if you don't argue pointlessly with me about the exact nature of the conversation, I promise.

Yes, to which I responded that something already being broken doesn't make it okay to break it further. IOs and incarnates already shift the game's difficulty balance away from where it arguably should be, which is a bad thing, and adding this new AT would make that problem even worse. And IOs and incarnates are tempered in ways this new AT wouldn't be (they require significant buy-in that any random character isn't likely to have, whereas anyone can just create a character of this new AT), and IOs at least have positives this new AT wouldn't (they enable deep buildcrafting and a player economy). I'm not really understanding what your problem is with that logic.

I feel like I've noticed this in the past as well, but I just came back to the game after a break and it jumped out at me immediately. There appears to be fairly aggressive smoothing or lerp applied to mouse look, and the sensitivity can vary noticeably depending on the frame rate. It's very minor, as CoH isn't exactly a twitchy game requiring precise camera control, but I think tightening this up could be a nice quality of life improvement.

Pretending a few instances of bad behavior you've seen in pugs is an accurate reflection of any of the people posting here in this topic is way more insulting. That isn't how this topic reads to me, I don't see anyone clamoring for this new AT so they can make more powerful characters. The split is between "you could make some cool character concepts with this" and "that's extremely unbalanced."

You said this in response to me saying I don't think this AT should be added because it would be overpowered, so I don't know how else you expected me to interpret it. I know you personally are not saying the AT should be added here, but that's what I'm talking about, and you're responding to me. More because of incarnates than IOs, surely, given they were added at the exact same time as IOs.

I mean, you didn't actually disagree with my point, which is that IOs add a lot to the game mechanically even if they aren't in line with its general balancing. Again, it's easy to justify their existence in spite of their balance issues because they enable deep buildcrafting and a robust player economy. I also just don't find "it's already broken, therefore it's fine if we break it more" to be a terribly compelling argument. Maybe we could unbreak things instead? Just to be clear, MLTF, the current form of the Hami raid, and IOs were all added in issue 9.

The difference is that IOs are a well designed system that adds a ton of depth in places the game was sorely missing it. It's easy to justify their existence in spite of the balance issues they cause, because their value is more substantive than "hey wouldn't it be cool if...". The same can't be said of this hypothetical AT, IMO.

You don't have to, but having the option at all would destroy the experience for a lot of people. The point of having the restrictions is that they're designed to create the kind of experience the devs want to create, and people play the game because they want to engage with that experience. Allowing people to define their own restrictions is, in essence, off-loading a gigantic part of the game's design from the devs onto the players. Most people aren't going to enjoy that; partly because they don't have any experience with game design and will not be able to craft an enjoyable experience for themselves, but mostly because they simply do not have any interest in doing it. Someone who wants to play City of Heroes wants to play City of Heroes, not design their own pseudo-City of Heroes and then play that. This concept also just fundamentally does not work with multiplayer games at all. You might not take all the OP powers and make yourself omnipotent, but other people will, and they'll end up in your teams wrecking whatever experience you're trying to create for yourself. You can't even solve this by being more selective in who you team with, because everyone is going to have different ideas of what is and isn't appropriately balanced. In theory if this is restricted to just a single AT you could just refuse to invite the new AT to your teams and refuse to join teams with the new AT, but that adds a ton of friction to how most people play the game, and realistically most people are going to accept the OP characters anyway because they make missions faster even if it's less fun. People tend to be really, really bad about self-policing that sort of thing. I'm not going to deny that there are some people for whom this is a fun concept that adds to the experience, but for the vast majority of people it's not, and I don't think it has any place in Homecoming, or really in any serious project where things like difficulty and balance are relevant in basically any way.

I'm not in favor of increasing inf rewards as a solution to this problem, but I do very much doubt changes in low level inf rewards would move the needle at all on inflation. A single fire farmer probably makes more in ten minutes than a new player's first character would make in its entire journey to 50.

That would only be the case if you couldn't level out of them. Because you can, whether they became more or less affordable depends on the ratio of the increases. If XP was increased more then inf gain, for example, they would become less affordable because you would level out of them more quickly.

I'm not saying you said the devs were infallible. I'm saying the argument you're making requires them to have been infallible, otherwise it's not a sound argument. There are like four different comments immediately above this one demonstrating that your reasoning is unfounded. Where's your proof?

No, they're not. Their argument was that the devs intended for players to be able to fill their enhancement slots at level 20+, and that is still their argument. They categorically can't be moving the goalposts if their argument isn't changing. You're trying to use the fact that the devs set the rates and never changed them as evidence that all the results of those particular rates were intentional. That's a reasonable argument, but it's still just a supposition, because the original devs were not infallible. So it is also reasonable for someone to disagree with that based on other pieces of evidence, which is exactly what's happening.

They're not moving the goalposts, your argument is genuinely fallacious. The original devs were not infallible, so you can't assume something being the way it is is concrete proof it was intended to be that way. Charitably, the disagreement is indeed just a difference of opinion.

Good thing their argument doesn't rely on that then.