Jump to content

ImpousVileTerror

Members
  • Content Count

    535
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

ImpousVileTerror last won the day on June 27

ImpousVileTerror had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

522 Excellent

About ImpousVileTerror

  1. Your dad is probably just jealous. You have more important people to impress in your life!
  2. uh, @AerialAssault? aethereal was fairly clear up front . . . "This isn't a terribly serious suggestion. More... Something to think about." "Too big a change to do globally, but I think it's kind of interesting." This was never meant to be a blanket change without considering the full consequences. It was a thought experiment, at least from my reading of the original post and some replies. It's definitely something which, as aethereal originally suggested, should -not- be applied to ALL enemies, though. That would be rather ludicrous, and I should have addressed sooner (and, heh, still don't fully address until later in this post. I'll get there, eventually!). The notion of stacking the Halving mechanic was something I didn't see as implicit to the concept. I was thinking of it in terms of a "get hit by this, and now for X period of time your Defense bonus is halved, unless another application of the Debuff is applies, extending the duration accordingly." Although, stacking it does further highlight how it would target and impact high defenses more than lower. Half of 0 is still 0; so if we were to stack such a Debuff, it would be an equalizer. I followed up with refining the concept in that targeting Defense directly would overly impact those Archetypes/Power Sets which have Defense as their innate core mitigation and survival tool. After all, it was illustrated to me that hitting the core Defenses of players rather missed the point of all this. And, as the majority of concerns/criticisms/complaints of this nature (again, based on my reading, at least) seem to focus on the impact of Set Bonuses, I re-examined the idea in a more narrow application. And, again, I do emphasize that I don't think these are inherently necessary changes. But theorizing on new mechanics is healthy for game design. Maybe the Devs already thoroughly examined something like this and discarded it for any number of reasons, but they didn't explicitly tell us not to consider it. Talking about it here, exploring and examining the impact and the metaplay reactions, is part of the fundamental reason for this board. I'd encourage everyone not to oppose ANY idea. We could work with others to refine ideas, or disregard them and explore ideas that personally resonate with each of us. I trust the Devs to simply ignore any idea that doesn't meet the burden of rigorous iterative design. No one in the community needs to "vote no" on any idea. I frankly believe that ideas need to reach critical mass before they'd ever really reach the Devs' consideration. Ergo, the best way to demonstrate a vote of no confidence in any idea here is to simply not reply to the thread it was posted in. Of course, AerialAssault raises some excellent points in regard to the To-Hit Bonus, and by extension any difficulty boosting mechanic. Increased challenge is available and exists in the game, and there is a perception that these requests for greater difficulty are coming from a perspective that seems to wilfully ignore the existing content which is already more difficult. So, it seems, that a mechanic like either of these two (To-Hit Procs and Defense Halving) would be applied to -just- select enemies in factions like The Council (specifically at high levels) to bring that group up closer to other challenging enemies groups. Personally, I'd rather see rewards lowered to decentivize people from targeting the weaker enemy factions _AND ONLY IF_ this is genuinely seen as a problem worth addressing by the Devs. I recommend keeping the Council easy for players who do not want to seek additional challenge. At that point, where does that leave theoretical new game mechanics meant to increase difficulty? Why, for new content, of course! Imagine an Incarnate faction or a Trial which utilizes mechanics like these. So, @aethereal! Do you think a small edit to the original post might help refocus the conversation constructively? Or do you still personally feel that the idea should apply to all enemies? If you do edit, I recommend retaining the original wording for posterity, and amending the post with the new perspective. After all, fully changing the start of the original post in a thread has had some staunch criticisms in the past . . . *remembers Steampunkette's Hasten thread from last year and cringes*
  3. Mm. Right. Good point, @Zepp. Good point.
  4. Can't use more than three of the same type of Reputation on the same user? That would lead to . . . interesting results.
  5. Come on, people! They don't -truly- count until you List them! https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/18342-list-of-character-lists/ Get to Listing!
  6. Nah nah, Emmy. "Bind for life!" I like it. I liiike!
  7. Coalitions exist, absolutely! However, they're still rather limited compared to the likes of Global Channels. As mentioned in the other thread, you may find that the OOC and RP Global Channels could meet some of your needs. But if it's really Coalitions that you're after, do you have some specifics on what sorts you're looking for? Theme? Tone? Player age/maturity? Hero? Villain? Mixed?
  8. That's correct, yes. /chanjoin OOC /chanjoin RP
  9. I thought Power Customization was Chris "Back Alley Brawler" Bruce?
  10. I, uh . . . I wouldn't mind it, @Sir Myshkin. https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/15464-third-class-atos-game-changers/ As an option, anyway.
  11. "they're stripped of IOs and deleted" I know! I know! Not my characters; not my call. Just . . . just . . . We -have- 1000 slots! And free, unlimited accounts! *sulks*
  12. Also, just 'cause it amused me:
  13. @Frostbiter went there earlier: https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/15491-forum-reputation/?tab=comments#comment-164727 But really; neither of you have BAD Reputation! In fact, you both have Excellent Reputations!
  14. An excellent point. So . . . what if it was somehow able to target JUST Set Bonus Defenses? After all, the nature of this complaint (at least as I keep hearing it) is that a Blaster at the Defense Cap trivializes all of the Melee Archetypes. (Again, I'm not here to say this is necessary or warranted. I just like to theorize about tweaks to the game, and what sort of impact they would have. To play "devil's advocate," if you will. Good ideas rarely spring up fully formed on their own. They require the nurturing of a community's efforts to spitball ideas and examine their outcomes.) As for Elusivity . . . sorry. I still haven't been able to wrap my own head around that one as-is.
×
×
  • Create New...