ImpousVileTerror

Hey hey! I collected a Full House on Reputations for my https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/20081-page-6-guesses/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-238340 post!

I'mma go test that right now'ish with my Force Field Generator. (Right after this timed event.)

@Oubliette_Red, I'm pretty sure it already does change on-the-fly like that. My Powers certainly seem to be utilizing PvE numbers against NPC enemies in PvP Zones, and PvP numbers against players. Although, I've not brought a Regen-vs-Heal-Over-Time character in to PvP zones to really test that. THAT could certainly cause some interesting behaviour in regular PvE zones. Like, will my non-PvP-flagged ally get the Regen if I'm flagged for PvP, or the regular Heal-Over-Time? What's the code's natural behaviour in that situation? To merely error out and crash, or will it just robustly pick one of the two and soldier on, or will it apply both? Neither? I rather want to see this get tested now . . .

Derp on my part. I find my vision adjusts to the night time colour palettes more easily, so I didn't even realize.

Banished Pantheon Shaman? Mayhaps a Necromancy / Storm Summoning Mastermind?

I think calling the use of a slap emote a "fundamental right" is pretty disingenuous.

Given that these are memorials more-so than Easter Eggs, may we please have a Dev provide us with a full list? In "spoiler" format if there's a concern about some players wanting to locate them on their own terms.

"Required." This word gets bandied around a lot in topics of this nature. NOTHING in the game is strictly -required.- Generally speaking, we play for the content. Badges and Zone -are- a part of that content. Wanting the Badges in Bloody Bay, Siren's Call, Warburg, and Recluse's Victory is just as valid as playing in Teams or doing Incarnate content. So, if having a level 50 with Incarnate Powers is "required," then so is entering a PvP zone. Please remember: Not everyone plays the game the same way or for the same reasons, but as long as they're not violating the Code on Conduct, they -are- EXPRESSLY welcome on Homecoming, per the Mission Statement. I think we would all do well to remember that very key aspect of this game before branding anything "required" or "trivial" or what-have-you.

And since some people seem to like to take the piss on these sorts of things and get all pedantic, here's my step by step on the matter (note: I am NOT a GM, and do not speak for them. I offer this merely as a jumping-off point for the GMs to consider using, or not, in their sole discretion). - Player versus Player conduct as intentionally designed in-game is the specific purpose of PvP Zones. - PvE content exists in PvP Zones, essentially as "bait" (for good or for ill, that debate is for game design discussions and philosophy). - The Code of Conduct has specific rules regarding harassment, which are enforced by the GMs at their best discretion. - Playing the game as intended is not against the Code of Conduct. What is "intended" may be reviewed by the GMs at any time. - Appeals can be made of specific GM decisions, IN PRIVATE through the Support Ticket system in-game or in these forums. - Players are encouraged to treat one another with respect and a mutual sense of enjoyment for the game, but in cases where personal interests clash without breach of the Code of Conduct, it is recommended players distance themselves from others with existing tools at their disposal in-game (such as visiting other Zones or Shards, using Ignore features, et cetera).

I'd still like to know if only to see where the Devs' collective heads are at; what sort of experiments they are conducting and the like. Granted, without context, then incorrect inferences may be made.

Ta-da! https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/16387-tempests-roleplay-suggestion-compendium/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-238743 Here's hoping.

If possible, it has been suggested by others that having a means to open another player-character's Info just from having their name in Chat would be very helpful.

. . . I'd say "challenge accepted," but . . . I just don't have the patience for that right now, heh.

It was more about giving each Archetype a "signature" to be uniquely their own thing. Whether Defiance and Fury are different enough or too different is clearly a point of debate. Largely the issues with Hero Archetypes is that the Inherents were wither baked-in (Scrappers) or added after-the-fact in an attempt to increase/improve identity. I'm still not keen on either Vigilance or Containment, and find it sadly ironic that Dominators are better at controlling than Controllers are thanks to Domination. BUT we're getting way off topic now. This is supposed to just be about Electric Blast in particular, and for any/all Archetypes which have access to it.

eeeh . . . it -might- be doable, actually. Not a trivial amount of work, to the point that we'd probably need about 10 to 30 more graphic artists to pitch in to get any traction on the idea, and part of the issue is that flat textures can't express as much a range of emotion as modified 3D geometry, so players would need to switch costumes to do things like an eyebrow rise . . . buuuuut . . . yeah, this is definitely something which -could- be done. Integrating a slash command to change the texture might take some doing, but it would still only be a one to three coder task. Again, like face shape, the "best" solution there (read: The solution with the least impact to development time and resources) would be to use costume slots for the other face textures to express emotion. Of course, at that point, we're right back to needing more costume slots!

Thanks for the feedback, the information, and for getting involved, @Castilonium! Also, YAY for your first post!

Your dad is probably just jealous. You have more important people to impress in your life!

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*

Mm. Right. Good point, @Zepp. Good point.

Can't use more than three of the same type of Reputation on the same user? That would lead to . . . interesting results.

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!

Nah nah, Emmy. "Bind for life!" I like it. I liiike!

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?

That's correct, yes. /chanjoin OOC /chanjoin RP

I thought Power Customization was Chris "Back Alley Brawler" Bruce?