SwitchFade

@Gavric Alas, 3 paragraphs in to your original diatribe I was summarily forced to view your opinions with severe skepticism. Were a public airing of discontent to pass the scrutiny of stately manners, veiled behind the fallacy of constructive criticism, rightly it would perish adroitly upon the anvil of scorn. Better to champion the better part of valor by practicing humility, thereby bequeathing both respect -and gratitude- upon those you seek to offer council. The short version? Rude. And wrong. Edit: I notice you have "fud" in your profile... And speak in a deriding tone very similar to another poster that used to frequent these boards... @jubakumbi... Is that you? 🤪

Word. SK system, to me, works fine. This is classified as... Operator Error... On the part of the team lead

"à la" means, in the style of, or in the vein of... So, like burn out and afterburner buff other powers, a new leap pool power would buff acro, was the example; not adding speed to it. Not meaning add speed, which would be copying them.

I meant, why this part? "Tsoo BOSS PBAoE's -RES power is unresistible, and lMO it needs to have that flag taken off as well." you want that their debuff should be resistable because, too OP?

First, consider the SO crowd and balance point... Acro does have a purpose there, no io set to give KB protection, so CJ is the golden sauce . Second, consider the blaster crowd... Pair acro with the ATO proc for +1 mag hold protection spammed in t1 and t2... You get really good hold protection built in. Third, leap pool needs an addition power added to it in the form of a passive/expensive toggle that enhances acro in some way. Two power picks, better buffage from acro. There, original acro is still good and can be improved on, al la burn out/afterburner

I'll tek YOUR jerb 🤣

Why?

Graph confused... Much brain boggle.. NERF TROO Then nerf REGEN. Troo dat.

Not that I advocate it, but solving PPM is fairly simple: make them mutually exclusive. Only 1 proc by type per power. Immediately after that, nerf regen.

The game should be balanced around pie. Because pie>cake. What flavor, you ask? Well, well... Therein lies the TRUE question! Nerf Regen.

F10 You can edit text from the profile thingie.

This is the underlying refresh need. Currently, the T9s add something that was really designed for an issue 4-7 game. However, I am sure there are those that take and love them, who play in this environment. The challenge is, balanced round SOs, in a casual realm, are the current T9s relevant? Of so, leave them. Why? Because in a super IOd out maxi cosi realm, we don't need the T9... And THAT'S OK. If there are people who use it for their style of gameplay, leave it. Doesn't hurt us min/maxers to skip it, because that just gives us more power choices. More data is needed from the Dev team to really know the repricussions. At this time, delay/no vote... More data plz.

I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday for a Burger here today! 🤪🤪

The return of J. Ënmêrtz? Can't be mad! Technically not a real name!

Exchange for converters, store converters in base salvage racks. Use converters to roll and sell. All my merits become converters and go in base storage.

Omgzorz, regen too OP, nerf twice. Doms need all powers replaced by brawl. All brawl. Oh and, answer to OP: No.

An inferior good is one that that moves inversely to disposable income: should disposable income increase, consumption of inferior goods decreases as a direct result, being replaced with consumption of normal goods. A normal good is one that moves directly with an increase in Disposable income: when disposable income increases the quantity consumed of normal goods increases; when disposable income decreases, consumption of normal goods decreases. Income elasticity of demand at zero would yield perfectly inelastic,meaning regardless of disposable income shifts, the same amount would be purchased. I. Sum, this is not representative of the market in CoH. As disposable income rises, participants are more willing to buy more expensive goods and pay higher prices per good. Elasticity of demand, supply and income are related to normal and inferior goods, but elasticity does not define a good as normal or inferior. I would not make any assumption, personally, about the largest inf sink in game currently, but could create a statistical model that would approximate it with a 95% confidence level. I am relatively certain that the primary method of inf removal in CoH is a combination of factors, chief among them would be fees, p2w and costuming.

FIX'D! But no for the seriouslies... Thanks and no.

How DARE you! 😭

I missed last month. So... $50 on it! Domino....M#th$r F@ck&rs

I'm terribly sorry, that's not how economics works. As in the previously mentioned thread, you're misinterpreting most of the functions I have explained and your reasoning doesn't actually pertain to them. Economics doesn't cease to function because the economic environment is virtual; it will always exist where humans interact in an environment where there is a market, because economics describes human behavior. I understand you have an opinion; however, that doesn't invalidate evidence and facts. We've been down this road where I, and others, spend 50 pages explaining, with evidence, how and why it works the way it works, I'll leave it at... The fee does work and is necessary. Math is math 💯🤯 and economic principles are clearly evident and functioning exactly how we expect.

Hi. *Deep breath* I'm sorry, that's not how economics works. Economics isn't a "real world" or "real value" thing, it is human behavior. It's not odd, it's actually quite sane and normal. At the risk of repeating the post 4 up I replied to someone else... A tax, or fee in this case, serves three main functions, As a control in the RATE of inflation, couples with other measures A reduction of available circulating currency, as a sunk cost A barrier to entry/risk requirement for engaging in a transaction Removing it would foster rampant inflation, market manipulation and currency saturation. That's the shortish version... More details up there 👆👆👆 💯🤯

Not quite. Normal vs inferior goods, substitute goods and inflation are not equitable terms. In this market all goods are normal and substitutable. This controls inflation as a bi-product and stabilizes equilibrium price at a level that is much lower than in a market where there are inferior goods and non substitutable goods; scarcity causes demand driven price points to a larger degree, as well as inflexibility, due to rarity. Fees are a direct control on the rate of inflation, and sunk costs remove available circulating currency as well. Sorry, you just happened to be in the line of fire after the levee broke and the economic word vomit flooded everyone in thread.... Because..... That's not how economics works 😋😋🙏🤣🤣

I hope you didn't wager on that 😭🤣

I'm sorry, that's not how economics works. A fee, in this case a trade tax, is an expense that reduces both buyer and seller surplus, creating a tax wedge and causing dead weight loss, technically. The argument that taxes are a net loss to all due to this is often postulated; however, this is categorically and mathematically disproven in nearly all cases, because the positive benefit from three main goals of a tax oiutwiegh the marginal dead weight loss. Critically, the most important facet of taxes in CoH is important. Taxes are usually born in majority by the buyer, as the seller passes this on to the form of a higher price, to cover their increased expenses. Being that this economy has less emphasis on actual incurred expenses, or COGS (cost of goods sold), this is generally less evident than one would find in a other markets. Further, the seller bares the burden of the tax here, as it is assessed essentially as a listing fee. In the majority, here, the fee paid by the seller functions to balance total currency in circulation, in tandem with other levers, thus controlling the rate of inflation. Additionally, it serves as a barrier to entry, causing those who would engage in trade via the market to do so with a modicum of caution, as each transaction initiated will incur an expense that is a sunk cost, should no buyer materialize. In effect, this will deter blatant flipping of goods and encourage equilibrium. The fee serves three main important functions, it assists in the balancing of available currency in circulation, helps control the rate of inflation and encourages price equilibrium. Removing it would have significant negative repricussions, whether you believe it or not is immaterial; math is math.