battlewraith

I was only interested in the merits. I ran it on 7 alts once, sometimes twice, a day for about a month. It's interesting to see how many people will wait a fair amount of time to get on a team for something like this rather than just starting a team and doing it themselves.

Yeah, my point is that it would be stupid and aggravating to have to do that. I agree with your proposal.

No I don't have to. I never made any claim about power shuffling. You said that any restructuring against the intended design would be game breaking "any way you slice it." Troo called you out about it and now you're shifting the goalposts.

Yes exactly. What you were describing is what you and your friends got out of the game. Fine. But then when there is a proposal that goes against what you want, you define the entire population in your terms:

That's not what you said though. You said "any way you slice it." I react to the words that you actually say. L O L.

LOL just stop. I've played this game since 2004, so for me personally your bs is not compelling. The people I play with, like me, started here because it was the earliest and largest population base that became available. The first thing we did was level up farmers, to skip the grind we've avoided since the retail days. It has nothing to do with the "experience" about which you're opining.

That's not the point. You in your great wisdom said that reordering the powers was gamebreaking "no matter how you slice it." Now with this post, you're going further in the opposite direction. It's not so much that it's game breaking, it's that you're character would actually be so underpowered that it would be weaker than the standard characters. Yeah? And? The notion that saga mode was about having an OP character was a knee jerk reaction that some people had. It was baggage that got added to this thread. I don't think these characters would be that OP, even at lower levels. And part of the reason I called it "saga mode" was that it would pose something of a challenge for people that are used to trivializing oldschool game balance through expensive enhancements.

I think a better comparison would be if a buffer cast a buff on someone and then it just randomly blinked off and then had to be recast.

This post is amusing to me because I was hammered for pages by people claiming that nobody would want to do this feature--it's nothing new, would gimp your character, etc. And at the same time, there's an acknowledgement that people actually would want to do this feature--to the extent it poses some sort of existential threat to your gameplay. First of all, why would it be such a big deal to run a Posi or whatever, and specify that you don't want this type of character on your team? It seems to me that you are rejecting an idea that you fear would be popular enough with other people to impact you solely because you don't want to be bothered taking the simple steps to rule it out. In comparison, I despise badges. I have wasted countless hours of my life in missions where we had to jump through additional hoops because somebody wanted some badge that did not benefit me in any way. But you're not going to find me anywhere on these forums weighing in on new badges because it is not what I am interested in. Secondly, maybe there is a way to reconcile what this proposal is going for with at least some of the concerns expressed by people here. As I've repeatedly stated, I acknowledge that this specific idea is extremely unlikely to happen. But it's indicative of the type of thing I think they should do--structural options that add some sort of gameplay appeal to existing content for people who would like to see something different. Maybe your shard idea would work. You could play this mode on another shard, but if you transferred back it would be in normal mode. That at least is a constructive suggestion.

Woosh. Because of exactly the reason I said. Population density. I like many people am at HC because this was the first option I became aware of and it retained the largest playerbase as far as I can tell. I'm not going to start over somewhere else because you don't like my suggestion and think I should move. Then the thread worked out for you. You're welcome. If you think those ideas are good, maybe you or the people posting them can start suggestion threads for those ideas.

Like yours, they are largely expressions of what those posters want. When you or other posters say "nobody is going to want to do this, people that farm up alts aren't going to want to do this, etc." it's just your opinion. It's not empirical fact or anything and it's kind of appalling the extent that posters will eagerly speak on behalf of thousands of players that may feel differently. The point about pvpers in BB or Siren's that someone mentioned would possibly be a hitch. But when I brought up pvp, you summarily dismissed it, waving away the "3 people that still pvp". You're all over the place. Nobody will bother with this, but it's also gambreaking. Your're whiplashing all over the place. LOL please. If you're going to go through all these contortions to put a stake in this idea, appealing to the notion that different people want different things doesn't help your case. And it's blatantly hypocritical. Apparently your free to tell me what other groups of people don't want, but when I suggest that certain groups of people might like something you're clutching your pearls. Regarding Cake, I believe the most essential thing to a server's success is density of population. Cake I don't think ever had that, so for you to use that as evidence that people don't want any of those things is just dumb. By your logic, the HC servers that are dwindling are doing something wrong because they are shrinking.

I'm playing a tank. I'm like lvl 38. I took all the powers from the primary and had to wait on the ones I wanted in the secondary. I PLed it to where I had all the powers I wanted and then started using it in missions. If this feature had been an option, I would've probably leveled it on missions from the get go. Also, we still have to missions difficulty settings. I think the the supposed steamrollering would not be as amazing as people would be making it out to be.

Once again, you assert that this will break the game without offering any justification for how that would happen. Nobody would make you do this mode. Nobody would force you to play this mode. How you progress is a big part of what has endeared the loyal fanbase to it over those 20 years? Bullshit. That's true for some people, not all. Pvpers almost always viewed this leveling progression as a hassle they had to deal with in order to pvp, which is why the temporal warrior feature was added. A lot of farmers don't give a crap about it, they are just grinding resources as efficiently as they can. PLers have experimented since release to find ways of skipping this progression. That skipping is the norm now for a lot of people--plan the character, get it to 50, then play it. It's not that I'm being obtuse. It's that you're so wrapped up in how you view things and want to play that you don't even seem to register how players are actually using the game now. And the irony is that my idea is an attempt to make that material that is being actively avoided somehow novel or interesting. Oh no, this idea will disrupt level progression--lol that ship has sailed. It's long gone. You're posturing like this is still the retail days.

The order matters. Even in a card game the way you shuffle and pick the cards matters. People wouldn't be freaking out if it didn't matter. Lol, because you've bothered with that progression for over 20 fucking years. What part of that do you not get. I get the coding objection. What I don't get is the complaint that, under certain circumstances, my usual rules of progression won't happen--and the sky will fall as a result. Sure. Add incentives to have people speedrun more of the content. I'm not against that, but it's not innovative in any way.

The feedback is typically rote. It's the same people, saying the same things, pretty much all the time. Given the circumstances, anything I would want is going to be seen as a bad idea. This was true on live as well, but there was a much larger population and variety of people. Before a certain goblin comes in here and starts complaining that I'm dictating what others are allowed to do, I'm not. I don't care. But if you give feedback on an idea, I'll comment on it. A lot of it comes across as bias or poorly reasoned in light of how the game is actually being played by people. I know that there are constraints that make things unlikely. I'm just talking about an idea.

It's more likely that there will be an environmental catastrophe and we'll all be dead. But weird things happen!

Yeah I doubt it too. But I see no reason to refrain from making the suggestion. The regulars here shoot down most things, even QOL or cosmetic changes, so aim high. You got nothing to lose.

It literally has not existed before. So it would actually be new. And it would be more flexible in terms of power selections than what has been done in any point in the past. And yes, the enhancement restriction is a balance on the overall game, just not the brief early level range. And again, you're dodging the question. The early game was not balanced for this--SO WHAT? People routinely skip over this content, which is the fastest to level through anyway. Why would it be preferable for that to be the case than for experienced players to have the powers they want when they want them in these early levels. If you don't want to do it, simply don't. Yes, that should be assumed. Thus the suggestion that they implement changes that breathe life into existing content rather than labor to produce new sets, missions, etc. all the time. The vast majority of ideas people post here are not going to be implemented, for reasons already discussed. So by this logic, I could just reply "they're busy, that's probably not going to happen" to pretty much any suggestion and it would be equally as legitimate. If someone came here from another game and said "this other game has a great feature we should do here", I could just suggest that they go play that game. The point of posting here should be about ideation, not a perpetual feasibility study.

Why? So that the trickle marginally increases? And yes, I get that the code is a mess and difficult to work with--not the point. If every suggestion here was met with 1. the code doesn't allow it. 2, go to another server 3. join the volunteer staff what is even the point of having this subforum? You're right, this is a place to get feedback. But I would be a lot more concerned with generic, stale responses than wacky pie-in-the-sky ideas.

I think I said something to this effect earlier but let me reiterate--I'm not expecting them to be able to do something like this, just in terms of having people available to do it. If the code doesn't allow for it--I get that. But the point of making suggestions, for me, is about indicating the general type of thing I want. It might be that, in the future, they do an overhaul of the respec code and something like this becomes available. At which point maybe they would consider something like this. What I would like to see these devs do is move past this mode of just trickling in new sets, maps, loot etc. For me, this is just more of the same. People burn through it and then go back to alting. The point of this idea is to offer an option for players to interact differently with content that is already available. Moreover, it's to make that content interesting to people who are inclined to skip over it. The non-technical objections to the idea make no sense in light of how people actually play this game now. No, not how everybody plays, but how a significant portion does. They skip over this content. On Excelsior, even PI teams will take in lowbies and let them soak up double xp. If you can just cut this content out of the progression, it's bizarre to claim that this change is breaking that content. Furthermore, the usual caveats apply: If you don't like it, simply don't do it. I still haven't done Hardmode content. If you don't want someone with that kind of character on your team, don't have them. It's no different than saying 50+ only or something like that. If you want to preserve the sacred path of traditional, balanced leveling that you've done for two decades there is absolutely no reason why you can't do that. How quickly other people earn xp is not a legitimate concern here at all--this would be gimpy PLing at best and only for the early levels. I suspect that the real concern is that people would like this idea and that hardliners would look lame in comparison but c'est la vie? Don't give in to fear my friends. You're made of sterner stuff than that.

I think I saw you on my wedding team 🙂

That's most likely because of having to respond to multiple posters. If I ignored a question, it's probably because I just missed it or forgot about it.

I don't think that's completely true. I do periodically play lowbie characters just to get a feel for them and I think these changes encourage that. As for people ROFL stomping the lowbie content--yes. They would. And they would probably jack up the difficulty until they leveled to a point where the early advantage was nil. Would you prefer that they PL instead? Look at all the lowbie content that is largely unused. Redside, Goldside, etc. Why not let people ROFL stomp it if that's fun for them?

This is an odd perspective to me as someone who plays this game. I would say that for most of the players I encounter, running the content that I run, the point is exactly that--to make a tank mage. The notion of cycling through the leveling process for what might be the hundredth time (if not more) in order to connect to the character...what? This is for people that get an idea for a character. They plan it out in MIDs. Then they grind whatever they need for that character, make it, and then test it out to see if it meets expectations. They've purchased expensive IOs, gotten the incarnates they need, and then blast the crap out of stuff. People are not bored with tank mages. They are bored with lowbie mission content that the majority of players routinely skip over. The point is not to make an OP character. Anyone who knows what they're doing has that already. The point is to add some novelty to the early content and give this type of player an incentive to actually play it.

This is a dogma. It doesn't make any sense in a 20+ year old game that has had multiple eras of development. When you suggest that something is game breaking, I'm concerned about the consequences for players, not the fact that some initial design philosophy has been infringed upon. I don't care. I only mention it because this was something that was a big issue for the retail devs. They were constantly trying to shut pling down. And the other relevance is that the existence and prevalence of means to skip this early content completely undermines the notion that that content is somehow in danger of this proposal.