Super Atom

This. Statesman dying the way he did was a giant slap in the face to the overall story of CoH. If the devs truly wanted him to die, they could have killed him any number of ways that would of been more fitting and progressed the story much further but no they chose to take a petty hatred for a former coworker and kill his characters off in a lame side story. They could have used Statesman's death to show how dangerous the battalion was or maybe even for rikti round 2.

You absolute hypocrite, venessa wears a mask that literally tried to steal her body. the same thing you gave sister crap for, despite her not stealing anyone's body. Also venessa ate unwilling subjects souls to sustain herself to fight the rikti, of course she didn't get a pass while someone who rescued people and was a larger part in stopping the rikti did. She manipulates young girls to do her bidding and kills anyone she deems unworthy and thats your idea of a hero? No wonder you dislike statesman, someone who time after time put himself at risk to prevent disaster. Statesman, a brave soldier who sought to stop himself from succumbing to mustard gas got the powers of a god and devoted himself to protecting innocent people. He helped stop the nazi's from ruling the world and he isn't likeable? What's wrong with you? and stop it with the Zeus rape stuff, you're grasping at straws to condemn someone for something they didn't even do and would have stopped if he could.

Statesman is also still in the mender silos mission. He appears in a couple oroborus things, that's why it would not be out of place to add the LRSF.

some of these replies are weird. I just want the ability to fight 54 statesman along side the rest of the FP at the end of that TF, be it oro or otherwise. Adding it to oro probably isn't terribly difficult and changes nothing about the game. Clearly through oro should be the only way its done if its gonna hurt this many feelings.

Timelines aside, this is only a request to add it back to at least oroborus.

Yes. He's just gone and its terrible.

Re-adding it to oroborus wouldn't change anything timeline wise. They'd still be dead, it'd just offer it to those of us who want to do that version.

I think part of the low level experience is not having the best endurance. Its quite literally apart of the growing in power experience of leveling.

please. get off that awkward high horse. Fake outrage about fictional characters is weird. Side note, Sister Psyche didn't body snatch anyone, aurora willingly let her inside. You don't even know the lore you're complaining about. Also Also, City of Sidekicks was the nickname for DCUO, because it was literally a city of sidekicks. What? That doesn't even make sense. Its just adding an optional version for people who want to experience the content before it was edited. Sister Psyche TF for example is in oro.

Pretty much this. It's easy enough to accept this was before the events of his death. This SF losing Statesman was a big mistake

Can we please get Statesman, or at least a version of LRSF added to oro with Statesman in it? It's just not the same without him.

They're terrible in the summer and those small ones hurt to step on.

HI, I'm biostem. I voted for the middle option. Evidence is needed when changes are at hand. See how easy that was? but nope heres you "TO QUOTE THE GREAT GENERAL PAXTON AT THE BATTLE OF THE SPACE WIZARDS, HE WHO DIES IS DEAD" like we get it you vape

You're not, he failed at mentioning evidence in favor of sounding like a douche. Like anyone would disagree with the idea of there being evidence before something is changed lol "oh no i sound like a butthole let me just change my statement to include the obvious"

The cottage rule as it was posted specifically stated that in certain cases a power could be changed outside of its core function. The rule we're even debating already has its own answer. It doesn't even need a debate because the answer is already "Yes under very specific circumstances" which should include proper set balancing being taken into account. I think pretty much anyone could agree on that. Nerfs would be fine if the people suggesting them would take the same care you ask they do for buffs. I personally loved the idea of ED and would welcome said nerfs to far over preforming things. As a personal note, I think you should buff under preforming things more than you nerf over preforming. City of Heroes is casual and always has been. Making sure sets are fun is more important than making sure they can't solo an Itrial.

3+ power picks, which depending on your build is a lot or nothing. This would only make the gap worse between sets. You don't know shit about my intent so don't try to change it. All i agreed to was a power could be looked into if a majority agreed to a problem. You filling in the gaps with your own whining about power creep is your problem. BTW "power creep" fuck off, people could herd entire maps and kill them in a handful of minutes with no effort before IO's or ED. We got less powerful if anything.

To be honest with you, all fitness being an inherent did was open up the problem we see now of people taking maneuvers/cj/weave in every build for the extra recharge. It caused power creep, there is no denying that but I liked it for the reasons of opening up my choices. I felt i had to take stamina. I willingly take manu/cj for the recharge.

What did i just say about words in my mouth? If a power in the set is garbage it should be looked at. If it's mediocre or low tier, probably not. You wouldn't change the damage on a t2 just because the damage on the t7 is higher. You'd change the t2 because its damage is lower than every other power set similar to it and it doesn't do anything differently than other t2s.

This isn't the world this is a private server and is functioning the exact opposite of how you're suggesting it would. Real life examples =/= private server of a dead mmo run on donations. " The two are not intrinsically linked. " Nope, but it's common sense it probably would be if majority who can't agree on what color granite could be changed to agreed on it.

This makes no sense. You would have preferred they buffed it so people would still get it anyway and be more powerful? I wasn't making any kind of argument for anything. I used it as an example of a majority outcry and something being done because of it and my personally belief it was a good idea. You're free to disagree on where the change was good or not but don't put words in my mouth and wag your finger at me like a parent.

1. A majority of people voting for something is not, in and of itself, reason to change/implement what they voted on. True and as i said "This is a video game, not a country." If a majority of people voted that a power was in need of change, that would imply something is probably wrong with the power. You've repeatedly said that if a power is under preforming and there was evidence then you'd support it. Don't you think that if a majority of people were agreeing a power was under preforming then there would likely be evidence to back this up? It's called common sense, if you can't piece that together there is no helping you. 2. There currently is no issue with funding Homecoming, nor has a significant enough proportion of those that do contribute, expressed such a level of dissatisfaction that they'd stop doing so. This has absolutely nothing to do with the devs listening to player feedback. If people were unhappy with one aspect of the game, it is unlikely they would stop donating, that would cause the server to close and they couldn't enjoy the thousand other parts of the game again this is basic common sense on how something works and as previously stated, the devs do listen. The assertion was the devs themselves do not pay for the server. The players do and as such they should review player feedback during decision making, which again they do. 3. You are certainly free to stop replying. I'd love to, but much like anything else you have to cut a problem at the source. You're desire to sound like you just submitted your thesis for review instead of just getting to the fucking point has caused confusion in a thread simply asking the question about if the cottage rule should be firm or if we could change powers.

Bro you literally started this with just saying no even if people wanted it, changed to they shouldn't be allowed to because devs pay for the server and then changed to the new coherent and demonstrable reason given for a change. You're a huge hypocrite and to be honest with you i still don't think you can read. Stop quoting random bullcrap to sound smart, nobody cares. Also i'm pretty bored of this circle lets just agree to disagree on who meant what and move on.

this is suggested a lot. Personally, and this is entirely personally. I think sentinels aren't good. So if its gonna be sentinels round 2? I could take it or leave it.

I used 'everyone' loosely as an example of a fake scenario in which people could agree on something. You keep harping on it as a factual statement used to support an argument I've never made. Naturally there are checks and balances in the devs. You again though continue to belittle people by insinuating none of this (again this is all a fake scenerio so we could argue forever like this) would be taken into account. You're using wild assumptions to say something shouldn't be done while the question asked is only would it be ok to even approach changing a power.

So, I'm now convinced you at least have trouble with reading comprehension. The question posed. . Do you think that if the playerbase voted on a per-power basis, it would be acceptable to totally redesign certain powers? The answer in question. Yes, if most people agree So what this is implying is that if it was suggested detention field from force field was a bad ability and needed redesign, would it be ok to do so if a vote was held and a majority agreed that yes it could use a redesign. It says nothing else and you've chosen to say that "Just because a majority thinks so, it doesn't make it right". Of course it doesn't automatically make it correct but what it does do is in a setting like a private server suggest a change could be made and a majority of those people, some of whom probably pay for this server to be kept running, think it is correct. For you to chime in and say that you personally don't trust the opinion of people and so the discussion shouldn't even happen is far more egotistical than you've claimed me to be. Yeah it'd be wild if a giant section of the player base hated the product so much the company then made an older version playable to its community based purely on player demand. Wouldn't that be nuts? Could you imagine if a company valued player opinions enough to do that?