Excraft

What if the person just doesn't want to reply or is blocking emails from anyone not on their friends list? Lack of response doesn't necessarily mean the account is inactive, although it could be.

That's how it should be done if that account is still active. No one should be forced to give up a name if they're still actively logging in and playing. If they're active, they're reachable in game and can be negotiated with to release a desired name. If they don't want to release it, they shouldn't have to. I don't think we need an automated system of emails for any of that. Just use the slash command, get the global of the person who has a name you're looking for and PM/email them in game. With that said, this name release thing should be run on inactive accounts only that haven't logged into the game in literal years. If you haven't logged in for more than 3 years, you've abandoned the account and the names on it are up for grabs. Alternatively, changing the way names works to make it the combo of charactername@global like Cryptic did in their Version 2.0 engine would solve any name issues and everyone could have any character name they want with no worries about whether its taken or not.

Never heard of memphis_bill, but you @Greycat I've heard of/seen here on the forums. You must be super famous then! 🤣

I'd say you're right.

No, I've never heard of whoever that is either. And yes, that doesn't make him "famous" to me personally at all, sorry. I'm curious, how do you know exactly how much or how little time I spent on the game forums when the game was in retail? The answer is you don't know. You've no idea. And yes, I have asked a couple of people I know who I roll with from back in the day and they've never heard any of these names either. I'm sorry, we've never heard of anyone in your little clique of internet buddies. They may be "famous" to you, that doesn't make them "famous" to everyone. And we all were back then and are still now part of the City of Heroes community. The community encompasses everyone, not just you and your clique. Like I said, I'm sorry I never heard of your little circle of internet pals. That doesn't make them "famous" to me. You'll note I never said that doesn't mean others don't know who they are because it's more than clear some people do. Those people whomever they are were important to you and some others, but not to everyone. Your post seemed to make the assumption everyone knows who these people were and they are "famous". All I said was I never heard of them and maybe that means they aren't as "famous" as you thought. Feel free to disagree.

I'm sure you're correct. I still don't know who that is. Never heard of any one of them either. I don't mean this to be insulting at all, but I'm not sure these folks are as "famous" as you all think they are.

Never heard of either one of them and I played on live for years.

Oh I understand that bit just fine. I do find it interesting and entertaining that those vehemently lambasting others over their supposed lack of creativity can't focus their own vast pools of creativity on finding another name they like. I don't think a day has gone by since this whole discussion about purging names began that I haven't come across another player with a name that I personally thought was cool and clever. There's still plenty of great names to be had. The few with boundless creativity need to to use that creativity themselves and find something else.

Someone from the costume police brigade reported you. These are the rules and there's no changing them, so best to work within them and enjoy.

It's mildly entertaining that several of the people in this thread complaining about "their name" being taken are the same people who vehemently lambast others for "not being original" enough with character creation. What happened to being "creative" and coming up with a different name? I guess these kinds of things only work one way.

Thank you for this honesty.

Honestly, I think you're reading way too much into what I'm posting. I'm sorry that you feel like that was a personal insult as it wasn't, but there's not much I can do there to convince you otherwise. It certainly wasn't meant as one. I don't know where that's coming from and I could be wrong here, but it seems like your ascribing something to me and my posts that isn't there. I never said you personally were lying or called you a liar. I'd love for you to direct quote me where I used the words "lying" or "you're a liar" here. As I said, I think it's better to let people know up front what's involved and how much time is required to build something complicated and extensive. That's not a personal insult or attack on you, nor is it me saying you're lying. I don't know that we've ever had any sort of communication before, at least to my recollection. I've seen your posts and watched your video tutorials and base tours, but as far as I know we have never interacted before. I'm not sure how you would know anything about me personally. You're free to make whatever incorrect assumptions you like though. I certainly can't stop you. I very well could be. Isn't it better to let people have all the information up front to let them be the judge for themselves? That's all I was suggesting. I'm glad. It certainly seems like that's for the best. I wish you a good day.

Well no, it's actually proving my point perfectly. I don't see anyone at all jumping all over you for saying anything remotely critical about the editor tool. Others who have offered essentially the exact same criticisms of the editor and/or shared a different opinion on its "ease of use" are told that we're "being negative" and "discouraging others" and the like. There is zero of that focused on you for saying the exact same thing. Why aren't you or anyone else leveling the same animus toward yourself as you are me and anyone else who doesn't find editing a breeze? Aren't you "being negative" and "discouraging others" by saying the editor has issues? If you're unable to objectively see that, I can't help you. Correct. Your perspective and subjective opinion on what is or isn't "easy" is no more or no less valid than mine that the editor is cumbersome and tedious to use. I'll reiterate yet again, I understand it's ancient code that is doing things well beyond what it was originally intended for. I get it. You have to work within the parameters of what it's designed to do. I just don't find those parameters enjoyable or fun, nor are they intuitive. That's no fault of anyone here at HC and it's not a personal attack or criticism of their work. They're doing the best they can do with what they have and there's nothing wrong with that. I'd also like to add, I know a few people whom I would classify as expert builders that have built some amazing bases who all say the editor isn't easy to use. So no, not every very experienced base builder agrees on how "easy" the tool is. I'm not sure why you're hyper focused on the idea that my opinions and criticisms of the editing tool are discouraging people from even trying. I've made it a point to say that's not the case nor is it my intent a number of times. I do think its important for people to know the true level of effort and time that will be required for a complex build. I think it's a mistake to be making posts and videos about how "easy it is" to do without letting people know that it took potentially hundreds of hours, if not more to build a base. Not being upfront about that is not a good thing either, especially if someone dives in thinking it's a simple 1-2-3 five minute thing to build an above the plot cityscape with all the trimmings. Some of the bases I've visited are upwards of 12,000 objects and higher. Even if you very conservatively estimate it takes 30 seconds to manipulate each object, you're still looking at a full time job level of hours. For me personally, I already have a full time job and a family, so I don't have the time nor desire to devote to building a complex base. Others do and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. More power to them. I don't disagree with you at all on this and have said so repeatedly.

It's clear in reading this that I'm correct regarding the air of the unspoken rule of "don't be critical of anything" about the game. I don't have an "attitude of negativity" regarding bases or base building. In no way am I trying to discourage anyone from trying their hand at building. I offered constructive feedback as an amateur user of the tool. Respectfully, my experience with the tool and how it works, the amount of effort involved in building something other than a standard room is that it is too tedious and time intensive a process. As I said, I fully understand that the editor is ancient and being used in ways it was never intended to be used. I'm not faulting anyone for that. It is what it is and I'm happy we have it. Getting rid of the whole prestige nonsense and opening up bases for everyone is a great thing. I'm just offering my opinion on it and expressing that I personally don't agree it's right to tell people how easy it is to build bases they may see without letting them know how much work goes into that. I think you're underestimating people and their ability to make decisions when they have all of the facts. Sure, some people will see that the editor is tedious and time consuming to use and give up on it. Others will see it as a creative challenge and dive right in. I want to be clear, I'm not discouraging anyone from trying to build a base. As I read it, everyone has said that the few improvements like hot keys and such have made it better than it was. It still does have errors and bugs, which you yourself have admitted to along with it being poorly written. I'm not sure I understand why it's ok for you to make those comments, but when someone else points it out, we're "being negative". I understand this issue is close to the heart for you, but I'm sorry to say there still are many issues with how the editor works. In my experience, the whole shift movement thing still persists to this day and I find objects randomly moved every so often. At least these were there a month ago when I last tried the editor. With regard to the assertions that the editor is "hassle free" and "easy to use", I'll cite one of your own posts from another thread- In this example, instead of just being able to place one item on top of another and having it work like it intuitively should, you're suggesting the solution is to add a third object in to make the other two work as desired. To me, that isn't "hassle free" or "easy", it's tedious and adding yet another step to an already time consuming and cumbersome process of object manipulation. You can certainly disagree and there's nothing wrong with that. What defines "easy" and "hassle free" differ greatly between different individuals. I understand this is the process that may need to be followed in order to work within the tool. I'd like to finish by saying I think it's great that you're devoting your time to helping others learn about building. I believe it safe to say everyone appreciates your efforts on that front, so please do continue.

Honest perspective from an outsider here ... I can't speak for everyone, however I think it safe to say everyone understands that you all have to tow the line as it were on the topic of the base editor. I believe everyone understands you're trying to build a community of base builders, so being more honest, forthcoming and truthful about the editor tool itself and the time investment involved in building complex things isn't necessarily going to further that goal. Reading through the various posts on the subject as an admitted outsider who has dabbled with building, it seems to me there's a disconnect between what's being said by everyone here. It seems everyone understands and agree there's been some nice feature improvements made to the editor that have made building a little less of a hassle and improved it from what it used to be. Those new improvements still don't solve any of the other myriad of issues and buggy nature of the editor. It's an ancient bit of code that's doing well beyond what it was intended for, so it's understandable that it isn't perfect. I think most people will understand that, so I don't quite get why there's this need to gloss over the shortcomings of the editor tool. I guess it's just part of the overall air of the unspoken rule of"don't be critical of anything" here on these forums. Just being honest here, I don't think you're ever going to convince anyone that having to handle and manipulate thousands upon thousands upon thousands of objects individually one at a time many multiples of times in order to make something work is "simple" , "easy" or "hassle free". It's anything but that, and I think you all know that. Trying to claim it isn't just makes one roll their eyes in disbelief. None of that is to say anyone shouldn't be proud of what they've built and continue to create, especially those sharing their efforts with the public at large for everyone to enjoy. I can confidently say everyone using the publicly available bases built by someone else thank you for your work and appreciate you spending your time for us to have a new place to enjoy. Last point, this question was asked earlier in the thread... Here's the honest answer - You all may want to consider that the editor itself plays a very big role in there being very few of the already small number of people dabbling in building other than basic stuff. There's nothing wrong with admitting the tool has many shortcomings considering its age and original purpose. Nor is criticizing the editor a personal insult to any of the HC people working on the game. They didn't build any of the editor code, and I don't think anyone is trying to blame them or criticize them for it. It is what it is, but trying to sell the editor as a Lamborghini when it's really an Edsel isn't working.

Welcome back! Does this mean BaB in game will get moved to a more prestigious place than the back corner of Atlas?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'll say that even with the editor improvements, it's still a very tedious, time consuming, confusing and frustratingly annoying tool to use. For someone like me who just creates very basic one room hubs for my characters, I'll never create anything even remotely like the bases I see people making here. After dabbling a bit with the editor, I can safely say I simply don't have the patience for it, and the annoyingly frustrating editor certainly didn't help. From what I've seen and experienced first hand, there's a whole lot more nuance to working with objects in the editor than "simply" using hotkeys. It was very, very buggy in my experience as it kept shifting me around when I didn't want it to and kept grabbing objects that I didn't have highlighted. I gave up after a few frustrating attempts. It simply wasn't worth it. I've got a whole list of things that I don't like about it. You can definitely build some great and amazing stuff in there. I just won't agree it's an easy tool to use. It was easier to build homes and whole neighborhoods in games like the SIMS 20 years ago. Granted, the code for the base editor here is utterly ancient and was never intended to be used to build stuff like it is now, so it's beyond it's shelf life.

You can only pick sets that are available to the AT of choice. You are restricted to picking only one power per tier in each set. So you couldn't pick all snipes, just one. For example, you couldn't pick both Power Thrust AND Electron Shackles at tier 1. You could only pick one or the other. What this does allow you to do is mix and match from different sets into a very fun combo. It's a lot of fun and definitely worth a try to play. I highly recommend it. Other servers are doing a lot of fun things. Amazingly CO still gets the occasional new loot box stuff every now and again, so there is some minimal development being done on it. Beyond that, it hasn't been touched in years and has essentially been in maintenance mode for more than a decade. As for Trek being "nigh-unkillable", the newer stuff is certainly trying it's best to destroy the franchise.

The New Dawn COH server has free form capability where you can mix and match from all primary and secondary sets within a specific AT. You can make some very interesting concept characters with it. I wish the people here would look at adding in stuff like that.

No salt required. Cryptic getting STO launched within an impossibly short time is publicly known. The part about STO requiring CO in order to function isn't true. This was a rumor that was spread several years ago. Cryptic Devs put that to rest a long time ago. CO and STO might share a chat server, but were CO to get shuttered, STO will still work just fine.

CO has been going for quite a few years now. It wasn't a victim of the latest sale of Cryptic and from all reports, CO isn't going away anytime soon. Apparently it's still making money for Cryptic.

I've no idea about others, but I personally won't be trying to obtain costumes and pets for every single one of my alts. It's too expensive and time consuming an effort. I imagine most feel the same. Even if most people did want every costume and every pet on every alt, eventually PAs will start becoming more plentiful in the market. It may be a long while, but it will happen at some point.

These are great suggestions and would fit very well with quite a lot of the base concepts I've seen around.

This is only temporary. Once most people have enough PAs to purchase all the costumes and pets they want, there will be more available in the AH and prices will come down. As for removing hard mode content, no thank you. I don't run them often myself, but that doesn't mean that it should get removed. Others are really enjoying the hard mode content and that's a good thing.

This doesn't work if you're held/immobilized in some way or stuck in a long attack animation.