macskull

If I can't have more than one target not in the same area caged at once, I don't want it. /unsigned

It took a little bit of time for me to get used to the power icons not changing size anymore but I don't mind it. I don't like the recharge timer numbers themselves growing in size, it looks weird and the numbers seem to "jump" around instead of there being a smooth scaling up of the size.

They tried to make "ancillary" pool stick but that clearly didn't work out. Based on the timeframe in your post, let's see here: 2005 post-Issue 6: removed autohit damage from Mud Pots and Hot Feet 2006: removed XP rewards from glowies, removed ability to interact with glowies while untouchable, added timer to Dreck mission, removed ability to stack Vengeance, removed animation skipping while running Whirlwind, lowered toggle drop chances for many powers in PvP, removed ability to teleport Traps/Devices trip mines and time bombs, reduced summon level of Fire Imps, reduced Impale range, nerfed Controller epic power damage 2007: added rooting to enemy-affecting toggles, reduced Fury gain against AVs, reduced duration of "cage" powers in PvP, made several previously-unresisted regen debuffs into resisted ones, reduced enhancement drop rates as your level goes up, removed ability to slot travel sets into passive movement powers, removed 100% resistance cap against Hamidon damage, changed accuracy set bonuses to modify accuracy instead of tohit, nerfed Longbow/Arachnos heavies in Recluse's Victory, removed XP rewards from Devouring Earth lichens, "standardization" of Blaster T1/T2 attack cast times, removed XP rewards from Stheno eggs 2008: removed ability for taunt auras to slot taunt IO sets, removed XP rewards from Rikti portals, removed XP/inf rewards from the "Welcome to Vanguard" flashback arc, reduced Blaster unresisted damage in PvP, reduced +tohit from Geas of the Kind Ones/Force of Nature, removed ability to stack Boost Range, reduced effectiveness of Power Boost, removed ability to boost knockback with Power Boost, removed ability to stack Power Boost, reduced knockback protection value of Acrobatics, reduced XP rewards of high-level Family mobs, raised lieutenant hit points, increased the cast time on Energy Transfer, reduced the stun magnitude on Total Focus, the whole Issue 13 PvP changes thing, etc. I could go on but I think you get the point.

No, the adjustments (and the ridiculously long recharge on some of the newly-added powers) are based on a design philosophy that epic/patron powers should somehow be lesser versions of in-set powers. Apparently the way this is implemented is by having longer recharge times and endurance costs. Of course, these penalties don’t really pass the sniff test these days, and the penalties do a great job of making some powers (or entire pools) DOA.

These numbers are... disappointing, to say the least. The self-buffs are fine, I guess, assuming they stack from each target, but those -maxhp and -maxend numbers are awful and you can't even enhance the -maxhp. As a comparison, Degenerative Interface can potentially drop an AV's health by 4000hp and maintain that debuff for the duration of the AV fight, while this power with a 10-minute recharge can reduce that same AV's health by... 1% of that for one minute. Woo. Make it an AoE ally buff and you might get some more takes on this (hey look, free idea to expand the inventory of ally +maxhp buffs!). As it stands it's still a power on a 10-minute recharge that needs two less-than-stellar prerequisites to unlock. There are some tier 3 epic powers that are worth doing that. This one isn't it, chief.

There's at least one other server out there that's changed TO/DO/SO leveling scales so that these enhancements work over a wider range of levels than just +/- 3 to your character. Maybe that's something worth investigating.

You're using an old, out-of-date wiki. KHTF gives 26 merits.

Tarikoss gives low merit rewards because it's easily speedable and has been for a long time, but I'm fairly certain people don't do that often anymore and the merit payout has never been adjusted upward to account for it.

When the enhancement upgrade system was implemented, the topic of cost was brought up, and the response from the dev team was that players are expected to at least minimally interact with the market while leveling to generate inf to afford the upgrades. That could be as simple as selling your unwanted drops, or it could be more involved, but using the market to make inf (or find the enhancements you need cheaper than you can get them from the vendors) is expected.

This argument might hold water if we weren’t in the situation where prices on most items have come down since 2019, but here we are.

It is extremely rare that features which are in the design phase even get teased to the closed beta testers, let alone get presented to solicit feedback. For what it's worth, many of the (perceived and/or actual) issues with Arsenal Control have been brought up by testers since the day the set was released on closed beta about six months ago.

Is this behavior unique to bindfiles? I'm testing this ingame right now. I use a Logitech G600 and my default bind scheme is binding the side buttons to "shift+numpad#," and just pressing the numpad numbers isn't doing anything. Pressing shift plus the numpad number works as expected. I manually enter my binds vice using a bindfile.

IMO the reward for clearing an entire map is the extra XP/inf/drop chances.

There are two "base" versions of the code that are publicly available: the "I24" version which is the last beta build from the pre-shutdown test server, and the "I25" version which includes all changes and additions made to the game between shutdown and early 2019. However the code base and account data was obtained by the people who ran the post-shutdown server, it apparently didn't include the I23 code or we probably would have seen that released along with the I24 beta code.

So I think there's some miscommunication here in how the statistics are being represented. If there are 2 million characters and 700,000 of those are "inactive," then the odds of an already-in-use name being taken by an inactive character is 1 in 3 (well, 1 in 2.85174 but we'll round). The other poster is basically saying the name release policy would free up about 1/3 of the total character names that are already taken. No, but if in the future you try to create a character and I happen to have the name you want, PM me and we'll talk.

Inf gain from defeats has never worked this way.

You could use the 100 merits to buy the enhancement outright, but you could also use those merits to buy unslotters to sell and then buy the enhancement on the AH while still keeping an extra 14 million or so towards whatever else you want. Both methods get you the enhancement you want, but only one gets you a bunch of extra inf.

These aren't "weird exploits," these are "easy and beginner-friendly ways to make inf so you can buy stuff." If we're talking about ingame economy and how to afford things, here is some perspective: Inf gain from defeats, mission completion, and arc completion is still about the same as it's always been. The cost of pretty much every item on the auction house is orders of magnitude lower than it was back on live. You can complete an entire character's build for what would have been the price of one single purple enhancement. A PvP IO which might have sold off market for 3-4 billion inf is closer to 15 million inf now. It is so incredibly easy now to afford things compared to 15 years ago.

The policy as it is currently proposed does not do what you say it does.

This once again assumes there is a problem which needs to be solved. There has been zero evidence presented here - or anywhere else - other than anecdotal statements like "it took me an hour to find a name which wasn't taken," and the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data." I've said it in this thread, on other threads, on the Homecoming Discord, and ingame - if someone wants a name that I'm holding onto I would be more than happy to give it to them, for free. In the nearly five years I've been playing on Homecoming and the nearly six years I played before shutdown, not a single person has taken me up on that offer. Not one. I'm not opposed to the name release policy because I would be affected. Just like you, I don't actually care if one of the names I'm holding onto gets taken. I'm opposed to the name release policy because there are players that care, because releasing names based on inactivity is arbitrary and indicates to players that we don't care about their characters, and because the time spent designing and tweaking and implementing this system would be better spent on finding a way for it to not matter in the first place.

To the third point - even if a player is gone for a few years, that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t care, or that they’ll never come back. Perhaps the “fairest” way to handle it would be for a player to have a big “I am never coming back” button that would flag their account as inactive and if they didn’t come back after some amount of time (let’s say two years) only then would their names be released, and if they ever changed their minds and did come back you could point to the account flag and say “well, you did say you were never coming back.” My point was that any amount of inactivity-based name release is based on an arbitrary timeline because life happens outside the game and just because someone is gone for a while does not mean they’re going to be gone forever.

All this talk about entitlement and you’re the one over here going “they’re not using it and I want it.” There is zero functional difference between the name of a character that gets played every day and the name of a character that hasn’t been touched in a year. The points I have been making, and will continue to make, are: The name release policy purports to solve a problem that has not been demonstrated to actually exist. The policy does not stop people from “camping” names, which is one of the stated issues. The policy will result in existing players losing names of characters they’re invested in. How long that player has been gone for is irrelevant, as are their reasons for why they weren’t online. I don’t need to ask why they’ve been gone, because that’s none of my business, and asking why just means that suddenly I’m the one who gets to decide whether their absence from the game was for a “good” reason or not.

It all comes down to one single question: are we okay with upsetting existing players who are invested in the game on the off-chance that a new player gets upset and quits because the name they want is taken? I feel like that should be a no-brainer. The name release policy is an answer to a nonexistent problem, and the current plan for its implementation makes it trivial for players to continue to hold large amounts of names practically indefinitely. If I want to camp hundreds of character names, it’s only going to take a couple minutes of upfront time investment and then maybe an hour total over the course of a year. The players that are already camping names are going to continue to do so, and the actual number of freed-up names is probably going to be close to zero.

Doesn't really matter if they want to be named that, because you can't use asterisks or ampersands in character names. Nah, not a joke. Would a large portion of those possible names be a string of random characters? Sure - but even a tiny fraction of those possibilities mean there are still billions of possible names that aren't.

Total Domination doesn't do damage and therefore won't take the ATO sets, the text description is an error.