thunderforce

I had a think about this - the graph wasn't created by me but by macskull, and indeed it _is_ arse-backwards dates. So it's "from May", and that explains my daily/weekly confusion because I was looking at a graph with considerably more up-down than a week but with an x-axis that said it was a week. Editing the OP to reflect that.

It seems to be common knowledge some places that Homecoming's player numbers are gradually declining. Today we're about a month after Page 4; the live graphs on Discord tell me Excelsior peaked at 1043 players online this week, Everlasting 687, Torch 237, Indom 108, and Reunion 148. Given that the NA servers peak around the same time and Reunion then has about 100 online, that's a peak peak of circa 2150. (This paragraph is now less relevant given I thought initially the graph below ran from the 5th Jan to the 9th Jan '22). The graph below (captured by macskull, hence the MMDDYY dates) is interesting; now it's not clear what the exact numbers are (especially given the interesting decision to break the y axis up with lines every 166 2/3 players online) but I think (for example) the weekend peak for Excel is higher but the lowest in the week lower, and more generally the numbers look extremely similar. They're not as high as they were in 2019 (Dec 2019 has the lowest peak total players at 3,308) - but does anyone have 2020/21 figures? I suspect Homecoming player numbers flattened out from the initial burst of enthusiasm some time ago and now are more or less steady.

It's hard for me to know if this is a bug or WAI (unless my search-fu is just failing me), but when the cast time for Total Focus changed, it changed in Energy Melee and Energy Manipulation, but not in Power Mastery.

Perhaps someone else got this already, but Lost Motivation is from the 25-29 Magic contact; Traditionalist Foil from Steven Sheridan.

I think a more useful comparison image would be with a pre-update Rularuu Hammer (obviously unsheathed). I hope if you have used it for years you have some screenshots to hand. The war mace designs vary wildly in size so comparison with a different model doesn't show much.

That's a lot of words to say that "I'm taking a break" wasn't true. You've backed off a long way from "taking a loss in one aspect of the game, in this case damage, for the sake of another option, is typically regarded as being punishment for using that option", which as discussed was obviously wrong, to the idea that somehow there is something highly specific about it being a menu option which will cause it to be seen as "punishment". You've no actual justification for that, but let's pretend that's a real issue (and furthermore that I suggested it be a menu option, when in fact I suggested it be "somewhere"); have the toggle be something you can put in your power tray. I say "straw man" when you write "Neither does that mean that a change should be blindly implemented because of the inevitably of others becoming upset" as if I had suggested anything of the kind. That's what a "straw man" _is_; when you make up something the other party didn't say and then argue against it. It's allowed, but I don't think it's useful or productive to make up stuff the author of a suggestion didn't actually say and then argue with that. I don't propose to engage with Rudra anymore, since they seem now completely detached from any commentary on the actual proposal. I think I've made three reasonable proposals for how the supposed game mechanical advantage could be overcome and am perfectly happy to discuss those.

As discussed, you said that quote, taking a loss in one aspect of the game, in this case damage, for the sake of another option, is typically regarded as being punishment for using that option, unquote. I gave an example of doing that very thing, which of course is not seen as punishment, and there are plenty of other obvious examples (carrying purple insps not reds, slotting an attack that takes hold or damage sets with a hold set, not taking Assault when offered a power selection) to the point where it's pretty clear that that is not "typically" regarded as punishment; you were talking nonsense. We should instead consider the specific question of whether having a whole new way to control KB/KD in addition to the existing proc would be seen as "punishment", given that a player could just continue doing whatever they did before and not interact with the new option and its damage penalty. I think the idea that it would needs a bit more substantiation than an obviously false statement about what "typically" happens. Next time please respond to what I write, not obvious straw men.

I'm not "reaching" when I say this is a straw man. You've literally just made it up (just like all the stuff about how the OP, me, just wants a free advantage); I never said anything like that would be a good idea. It's not a useful contribution here to just make stuff up and then argue with that. What you actually said was, quote, taking a loss in one aspect of the game, in this case damage, for the sake of another option, is typically regarded as being punishment for using that option, unquote. (Note that I can quote your exact words rather than making something up.) If I slot a Devastation Chance for Hold rather than a damage proc, I am taking a loss in one aspect of the game, in this case damage, for the sake of another option, sometimes being able to hold people I attack. Typically, you say, that is regarded as being punishment.

It's odd because until now any kind of "free advantage" was terrible. That's a really obvious straw man. This really doesn't make any sense. If I slot a Devastation Change for Hold rather than a damage proc, is that punishment? Did people leave the game when that proc was implemented?

It does; it illustrates that just because one aspect of a question can be quantified doesn't mean it dominates. I'm looking for _practical_ solutions. Which you said "works for you", oddly, but I don't think it's revealed any such thing; I think some players also recognise that this supposed advantage is essentially trivial on the scale of the game's balance issues. I'm not sure I can apprehend the confusion of ideas on your part here. _Any_ non-trivial change will annoy someone; fact of MMO life. As such, no change can be rejected on the grounds that _someone_ won't like it. Aside from the aforementioned someone, I don't see any reason why any sensible person would regard adding an _additional_ option for such powers as "punishment".

Which is one reason even though the penny I'm offering you not to is quantifiable, the question of what you do isn't dominated by the quantifiable elements of the situation. I'm not aware of any existing solution to the problem discussed in the OP (I like KB, I'm willing to turn it off when teamed with people who don't, it's not really sensible to fiddle with unslotters every time). "Why not have a complete second set of enhancements and use up one of your limited supply of Multiple Builds slots?" is not as impractical as "why not become a developer and fix it?" (as discussed on page 4 of the thread), but it's up there.

As discussed (the time you said you were done, which I predicted wouldn't be the case, and here we are) it's not an advantage to me. Nothing has changed since then. You've also dodged from the general to the specific here. You said "I am completely against taking any proc and automatically incorporating it into the power sets"; it's clearly possible to imagine a situation where a feature is first added as a proc but it becomes clear it should then be given to everyone, in a way similar to how Fitness became inherent. Why you would be "completely against" that is unclear but it doesn't seem like a sensible basis to make design decisions. Just because something can be quantified doesn't mean it is the dominant factor. For example, suppose I offer you a penny not to comment in threads after you say you are done; now that penny is a quantifiable thing, whereas how you would feel about that is not, but nevertheless I doubt you will take my penny. Aside from the factor that any change to any MMO of any kind will consume someone with outrage, I don't see that as a likely scenario. The existing option of slotting a proc wouldn't go away, and it _already_ consumes a slot which could otherwise be used to increase damage. This does not address the difficulty discussed in the OP - KB lovers who are willing to turn it off as and when they are teamed with KB haters. (It also sounds rather like the "free advantage" which apparently would pose an overwhelming balance issue if the slot currently used for the proc could do something else.)

The result of this is that if some useful and obvious feature which should be available to everyone is first implemented as a proc, you will oppose any later recognition that it was a useful and obvious feature that should be available to everyone. This seems unfortunate, essentially saying "if a mistake has been made, we must continue to make it forever".

Also "make it as a" - the "as" is spurious. "On the onset of your work together, she tasked you with" - an "onset" is the very start of something unpleasant, like the "onset" of a disease. Even if later events in the arc were unpleasant, the word is not appropriate here. "First, she gave you the task of" would be less needlessly verbose, too, and avoid "tasked" which is a pretty ugly verb. "raiding on the outskirts". "on" is spurious here; "on the outskirts" is an expression, but it's not right here. (Indeed, I don't much like "outskirts" by itself; suggest "Cimerora's outskirts". "These former Romulus-allegiant soldiers" - ouch, that is clunky, and did their allegiance change or did they stop being soldiers? "would take heavy wounds, and come back" - the comma is spurious. "cavern, and aside" - suggest "cavern; aside". Oddly we find "a map, a sybil, and a Shadow Crystal", but then we can take the fight to General Sideris (where'd he come from? IDK if this is a second mission, but either way, having his name pop up as if we already know who he is is not great) and the Sybil, who has gained a capital S. She should be capitalised consistently. "Undeterred, after reporting back to Valeria, the map proved" - this says the map reported back and was undeterred. "Undeterred, after reporting back to Valera, you found the map was a more reliable path forward, although it seemed to make little sense." "She sent you" - and again the phrasing means the map is doing it. "Valeria sent you". "the Traitorous Cimerorans seemed eager to ally with" - missing full stop, and the capital T is spurious. "Cimeroran Traitors" can have a capital T since it's the name of an enemy group, but not this. "discreetly dress you up" - what, did she give you individual changing rooms? Suggest "opted to disguise you as". "Enlightenment, who exposed your lies" - I'd like to see this without the comma, and the nictus exposed our deception (which might include lies but definitely includes the disguises). I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to play this so I'm just proofreading the chunk of the souvenir that got posted.

I've proposed above two answers to the supposed balance issue; make the toggle not work on powers where it's felt to be overly effective, or make the "KB to KD" IO into a "make this power respect the KB to KD toggle" IO (which I would be fine with even though I would then be using a slot to have less fun sometimes). A third option would be to reduce the damage of a power having its KB suppressed (by the toggle not an IO) by whatever amount is felt necessary. If it's really felt there's a serious balance issue here - which for the sake of argument I'm willing to suppose there is - it seems it could easily be addressed.

This kind of speculation based on implementation details would not be very helpful _with_ some familiarity with the code. Without, I'm afraid it really is completely pointless. Yes, it wouldn't work exactly like any existing power - no more than Bodyguard mode did when it was implemented. No, that isn't a reason to suppose it would be hard to implement.

I don't see why it _wouldn't_ apply to a MM's minions.

Well, yes. To me the advantage is in having more fun which for me - personal choice - is quite closely related to, among other things, enemies being knocked back, sideways, over cliffs and I would say "knocked up" but that might be misinterpreted. If that happens less it's a disadvantage. You seem to be talking about game-mechanical efficiency - maybe effective defence by soft control not DPS - but either way I don't care very much, if anything I think the game could do with being a bit harder, and as far as possible I want to _not have_ this supposed advantage. I think it's essentially the same response; I was wrong about what kind of game-mechanical efficiency you were on about, that's all. Indeed. However, the supposed "free advantage" this change would convey can often be had now with the expenditure of one slot, so it _is_ about a single slot. I am, yes, a bit fixated on the way you have repeatedly characterised my request as "asking for a free advantage" when I was doing nothing of the kind. I tend to concentrate on things people say about me which are both demeaning and false. I think most people do and you should not be surprised when it happens. However, I have in the course of this thread alone made two further suggestions which as far as I can tell entirely overcome your objection even though I think that objection is absurd. I'm not sure why that isn't acknowledging what you say. I'm quoting this because I'm an awful cynic and I think there might just be a _tiny_ chance it turns out to have been slightly misleading.

Realistically, yeah, there's always going to be someone (and I agree re Excelsior). But I think it seems much less likely they exist in such numbers that you, or someone like you, is going to be troubled by "toggle or quit" other than extremely infrequently. (Of course, this also means that someone like me won't be pleased by "toggle or quit" -> "oh good, immediate identification of bad team leader" other than extremely infrequently.) Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, or Reunion really is much nicer even though I play on it and I'm not very nice. (Or, a cynic would say, no-one can get a team on Reunion because it has no players - but joking aside, it's quiet, not dead.)

I was born in the mid-70s. I mention this because it's somewhat relevant; I have reached a point in life where I simply cannot be arsed to spend my time on that sort of person. Couple that with the fact that they're much rarer on HC and it seems certain that I will never do this and will never be denied the opportunity to do it by the feature I propose. Now, I appreciate you may well be more willing than me to do that, not least because you couldn't be less willing; for all I know you also are my age, or older, but have retained more patience than I have. So yes, I understand that to you personally this proposal has a downside; but given (as discussed) those people seem much rarer now (when did you last team with a team leader who was a live-style control freak about _anything_?) I'm not sure it could be a very large downside for you, and I think it is extremely likely the total upside for the playerbase enormously exceeds the total downside for people like you (indeed, I think the net benefit from making it easier to identify control-freak team leaders alone might justify this proposal.) I'm not trying to dismiss the concern; but I think one has to recognise that someone's gameplay is damaged by essentially any change, sometimes someone is you (or me), and it can still be a good change overall even if someone is less happy - and the game could not be changed in _any respect_ if finding that someone meant a new feature could not be developed. In this particular case - and yeah, Reunion may be odd - I don't even know if the kind of players who cause the concern even exist anymore.

I couldn't even tell you the last time I met one. Not this year. Of course, your experience may vary... but on reflection I think a feature that will cause those people to immediately and unequivocally identify themselves as soon as possible would be a good thing just because of that. Saves time figuring it out anyway and quitting.

It's not because it is not an advantage to me (except, I guess, in terms of the social business of finding teams). If Tornado or Bonfire knock mobs down not back they are _worse powers_. I'm asking for a way to have making them worse, a thing I don't much like doing but am willing to for the sake of an easier life sometimes, made slightly less awkward; I hope this may also please players who don't like knockback because they'll find it easier to recruit people who do to teams without being annoyed by it. To anticipate your next reply; no, your belief that "better as in XP/hour matters" is not somehow more objectively correct than mine that "better as in more ragdolling everywhere matters". You may care about one slot (frankly completely ridiculous as that is in the game we have; it wouldn't even make the list of the top hundred balance issues); I don't for a variety of reasons including that I wouldn't actually gain a slot if the proposed change was made. That said, if we are going to pretend it's a serious issue, by all means the implementation could be to make the KB-to-KD IOs be "enable the KB-to-KD toggle" IOs. Bit clunky, but I could live with it.

The OP discusses how approaches that depend on messing around with unslotters every time you go from a fun team to a no-fun team aren't ideal.

Has whatever happened to you on live happened on Homecoming? My experience is once the early months were over and people's live habits faded, teams were enormously more relaxed about that sort of thing - it turns out, say, tankers' heads don't explode if you dare attack a single mob before they have neatly arranged every enemy they can exactly as they please. That said, I play on Reunion which has a distinctly different culture in some respects. I do agree that if this happened it would be a problem; it's a legitimate concern. I'm not sure it's a bigger problem than the same tosser telling you "reslot your powers or leave".

Presumably right now you use your powers in a way that doesn't make teams that are overly precious about knockback complain. So, if the toggle was added, you would leave it off and continue just as you are. What's the problem?