battlewraith

A lot of people that have chimed in on this simply cannot relate. They see no reason why this is a problem. Honestly I chalk this up to a lack of empathy, imagination, or both. Personally, I don't like using the market to earn. I find it tedious as hell and it breaks immersion for me (as in why the hell am I doing this crap in a game when there's real life shit like this that I should be worrying about). I don't particularly like farming, but I would seriously rather jump on a farmer and do some braindead grinding then dealing with going through salvage, buying converters, etc. The conversion was a great way to speed up enhancing a character with a currency of which you had a surplus. Sure, but for the vast majority of my characters, tier 4 in everything isn't a priority. And emps aren't all that necessary if it is a priority--I have a character that I was casually playing that has at least 2 of every very rare, thousands of threads, etc. So the emps on that character are largely redundant. After the change, I did transfer a large number of emps to a new character to tier 4 some stuff. Which made the itrials that I typically enjoyed doing less important. I've done a bunch of Kahn now, basically to grind merits and that's what people seem to be running, and it's a stupider mission imo. So yay for using the emps to tier 4? Emps quickly become worthless under this scheme unless you are regularly making new alts and shifting them to the new character to immediately skip Itrials for components.

Hmmmm....sounds like something a fast talking emo Keebler elf would say. Ben is that you? Yeah this change was a bad one, It penalized a certain type of player in order to address some fringe issue with people farming emps. In the same issue where they added extremely profitable hardmode content--cutting the profits of one outlier group while boosting the profits of another. And they added merits to some of the trials--which is great if you actually run that kind of content. If you didn't--well now you will need to if you want to replace what you lost with this conversion being gone. It's not as if the devs just made up for the loss, the way some people are framing this issue. Is it a huge deal? Not really. Did it make the game better? No. Did it add additional hassle? Yes. Yes people are bitter over this. And they will remain bitter about it because it's probably been part of their routine for years. So when this dead horse gets flogged yet again...I know that upstanding members of this community will continue to explain why the complainers are wrong (in their opinion), why the change isn't a big deal (to them) and continue to mock them away (like fucking twats). That's what community is all about these days. btw, @Erratic1 I appreciate you simply stating the facts. @Oklahoman I appreciate you for being an actual pillar of the community and being a leader ingame. You've certainly helped me out.

Well, you asked. I saw your post earlier and recognized your avatar. When I saw your second post, though, the avatar looked like somebody's head wearing a hat. And it looked that way for a while. But then I took a closer look and it reverted back to a guy's torso with his arms crossed. And now, no matter how hard I try, I can no longer see the face wearing a hat.

Touche!

Yup, make it happen.

I haven't forgotten that one, but I think my takeaway is very different from that of some other posters. It's almost like a Rorschach test. That quote happened at the tail end of the off the rails gap closer thread in the suggestion forums. So an unpopular suggestion prompted an all out war between the forces of the status quo and a minority of people who were interested in an ability change. The more important question that arose from this fracas is "why does making a suggestion to the devs in the suggestion forum have to involve running this gauntlet of crusty naysayers that like to camp out there." What I take Kai to be saying there is that, while feedback is encouraged, players are not supposed to be shutting down ideas they don't like and discouraging people from posting there. Unlike say, a debate forum, where your goal is to win the debate and there is an expectation that anyone participating is going to bring a lot of arguments for their position. Oddly to me, other people seem to be viewing this quote as the smoking gun of sinister GM authoritarianism. People that view them as unfair for some reason see this post as a confirmation of it. The ambiguities of this community are hilarious. Edit: It wasn't the gap closer thread, it was about power pool standardization.

The basic D&D boxed set I bought as a kid had chits (no dice) and Keep on the Borderlands. It must've been 1980, just prior to the 1981 revision.

Thanks for the replies! Yeah I like the animation. I guess the thing is that in the time it takes that dot to transpire, I could've hit the the target with a couple other frontloaded attacks. So I always wonder if it's just a waste of end. Maybe if I procced it out somehow it would be more obviously useful (?).

Hey peeps, I really like the aesthetic of the experimentation power pool, but when trying to incorporate it fully into a build I haven't had much success with it. The damage from toxic dart seems almost imaginary and corrosive vial seems to have a very small area of effect that doesn't seem to be worth the investment. Does anyone have any good slottings or synergies with these powers that makes them rewarding in a build?

Which happens, what...almost daily on these forums? I'm glad you've finally taken a stand on this bullying. Keep up the good work and I look forward to the fair and objective standard that you will no doubt follow in calling out people for this kind of abuse going forward. 👍

The relationship is that the possibility that the devs may take notice and consequently make changes to the game is the chief stake that motivates a lot of people to argue in the first place. This I would think is obvious and overtly contradicts your line about zero stakes. Oh I understand it, I just don't think you're exemplifying it yourself. You come across as very invested in waving away other people's concerns, telling them what they should think is important and describing their perspectives in a very exaggerated way--eg. troll-level arguments over things in which they absolutely should not have that much emotional investment. This speaks to my point. I don't doubt you're sincere. You really think you're taking some high road. But to me it comes across as emotionally driven and biased as anything else I read here. Also the zero stakes vs waste of time? Oh please. Cheap semantics. Because of the exaggerated and judgmental tone of it. Meanwhile, the same general tone reflected back at you is considered an attack.

Yes it is. What people find toxic is relative to the situation. You are not the arbiter of these things. If there are zero stakes in any discussion here, does that mean the devs are lying when they say they listen to feedback? If this is all a huge waste of time, then what does it matter how people express themselves? Why are you complaining pointlessly over people complaining pointlessly? Most people are not treating the slightest change as the end of the world. They are complaining about changes that effect how they play. But apparently they shouldn't get upset about anything like that because it's too low stakes--which indicates you don't really get the whole notion of escapist entertainment. Maybe we should be musing instead about the insignificance of human life in the face of the impending heat death of the universe lol? Get off your high horse and try to empathize with other people, it will maybe help you understand the dysfunction going on.

You can absolutely blame them. Some of the funniest exchanges ever just vanish into the ether. It's relative. If there are a group of people that are all on the same page, they will be given a lot of leeway to describe things the way they want. There are posters who will be very upfront about ideas they don't like being so stupid that they must be driven off the forums. If there's a dogpile going on, typically about issues that forum regulars consider to be settled, people will be toxic as hell. They will mock the shit out of someone or some idea. It's just not considered toxic because there's a substantial group of people on one side who are in agreement. The issue recently is that the update has created more discord along ideological faultlines. So there are more dissenters in play arguing against the status quo. Now when people can no longer just laugh or scorn something away, they start to complain about toxicity. The forums are too toxic, we need to watch how people talk to each other, etc. etc.

Okay, so you have a 50+3 character--obviously you put an effort into getting the character that far in pve. But you don't want to make any effort setting that character up for a zone. Which is fine but it's not an issue of I can't do anything. It's simply that you don't want to bother actually doing any preparation. A tank especially shouldn't be dying to zone randos unless it's actually an arena team or something. You have additional character slots and I believe that you have plenty of resources. Pvp builds are more strict than pve builds, but there's plenty of info on the forums about what to build for. It's a moot point anyway. It's trivially easy to get these badges now.

That's one of the joys of pvp: if someone trash talks you, you can do something about it. And it's appropriate. In real life, I am not going to punch somebody out because they didn't give me the respect I think I deserve. Whether or not you like trash talk in competitive ventures, it's going to happen. The same way any time you have social gatherings with human beings, there is going to be litter. If I'm organizing a social event, I can provide garbage cans and admonish people not to litter. But until I develop mind control powers, I can't stop littering from happening. But I view that as an issue related to how human beings are. Not an issue related to an outdoor concert, or a Santa Claus parade, or whatever event drew people together at that location. Likewise, I view complaints about abuse and whatnot in pvp zones as a smokescreen that is a cover for other issues. Personally, I learned very quickly not to say anything to people I didn't know in a pvp zone. Despite that, it was very common in the early days of zone pvp for people to fly of the handle, call me a griefer, report me for harassing them (supposedly, nothing ever happened), insult my mother, etc.

Skirmisher/Bard.

Doesn't sound likely. He'd knock on the door, get yelled at, and then start wildly waving his fingers in the air---frantically looking for the real life ignore button.

Well, you're soloing Ghost Widow. So you're character is probably pretty tough, no? Should they then wait for you to finish, and then duel you one at a time? What if you killed the AV and then turned around and ran out lol? Zone pvp has nothing to do with fairness or balance, and it's generally imo the worst type of pvp in any game I've played (other than like a Battle Royale style game). But the vast majority of complaints about coh pvp treat the zones as if they are representative of everything.

Nah. I don't even pvp in this game any more. I don't care if you like it or not. But this kind of characterization is a joke, on many levels. An old, endlessly rehashed joke. First of all pvpers are individuals. The few people in this thread disagreeing that pvp in this game was a mistake, or that pvpers are inherently toxic or something, do not represent some collective of evil pvpers that are out to gaslight you. Other pvpers may or may not agree with me. I think the oldschool ones that are still around don't even post on the forums much. Conversely, I'm very skeptical when someone claims that their viewpoint is in line with 90% of the playerbase. Here are some details about pvp in this game that I think are pretty straightforward and uncontroversial: 1. There was a faction of players that were anti-pvp from the get go. Some of them claimed to have been attracted to coh precisely because there was no pvp. They were pissed when arena pvp was added. 2. I think there were few, if any, complaints about toxic pvp behavior from the early period because it was completely gated off. There were no important things that pvers wanted that they had to pvp for. Also, the system was simpler. People were using SOs or Hammis. A build that favored single target dmg was better, but you didn't have an entirely different ruleset in play. I didn't have problems recruiting regular people for kickballs and matches. There was toxicity, but it was pretty much between specific groups of pvpers, not between pvpers and regular players. Anti-pvpers were still pissed, but their complaints generally had no teeth. 3. Along comes zone pvp. And the decision to add badges in the pvp zones. Now there is a heightened interaction between people who really have no interest in pvp and people who are only interested in pvp. This, I would argue is the source of the trauma that persists in some people to this day. 4. Conflict between pvpers and badgers, etc. did not kill pvp. Castle's disastrous changes did not kill pvp. Lack of development. Outright game breaking bugs like the arena not working. Extremely slow response to imbalanced powers (pvpers basically ruled out things that were a problem when they ran events). A lot of different factors went into the decline. Mistakes were certainly made. Was adding pvp therefore a mistake? No. Yeah I remember it. I also remember that a lot of the abuse boiled down to...getting killed in a pvp zone. "I just went in there to get a badge and this person killed me. I told them to stop, I just wanted the badge, and they killed me again! So I said hey asshole, I'm not here to pvp! Toxic pvpers!" If someone was insulting you, you had tools to deal with it. Ignore them. Disable zone chat. Report them if they broke the EULA. The underlying issue is that, in a game were most things are easy to accomplish, pvp was a serious obstacle for players who were not willing to become skilled at it. Even then there were workarounds. Go in when a zone was empty. Get friends to help you. etc.

Read what I actually said. I said your assessment or account of pvp was ignorant. I was clear from the get go that it wasn't meant as a slur. Moreover, the fact that you don't see a lot of people doing something now, doesn't mean that something was a bad idea or shouldn't have been added to the game.

The topic is issues related to this game and it's past and future development. Not the League of Legends community sucking or pvp brimming with bad apples in general. You gave a really skewed account of pvp in this game which I described as ignorant--because it was, You clearly didn't spend much time pvping. I suggested you have confirmation bias--that seems reasonable given that you claimed to have warned the devs about adding pvp in the first place. If my purpose was to insult you it would be obvious. I try to handle people like you as gently as possible, since anything that rankles you is assumed to "prove your point."

Or it's you and your confirmation bias. Generally when people hop into a topic on the forums, and diverge off of a relatively innocuous comment about dev mistakes to start badmouthing a type of player--they have some emotional axe to grind.

No. It doesn't. Even something like PUBG, where the avatar has the same hp and whatnot, features players using different guns and armor with different stats. There are a ton of MMOs and other games that have pvp and don't feature some generic character. I stuck with coh because of pvp, from I4 to close. It wasn't a "hot minute." I didn't get back into it with Homecoming, but the fact that you don't encounter any pvpers doesn't mean there's no interest. Redside and Goldside are pretty dead as well from what I hear--that doesn't make them mistakes or bad ideas either.

Generally speaking, people that don't have much artistic ability tend to be wowed by realism. It's pretty common for people with a high degree of artistic ability to be bored by it.

I'm not saying this to be insulting, it's just the most accurate term I have to use: this assessment is incredibly ignorant. Like someone who never ran a TF saying they sucked and were a bad idea. When the arena was added, there were so many people queued that it took me a couple days of trying before I could get into a match. There was regular activity in the arenas for quite a while, including server battles and leagues and tournaments. When the zones were added later there was a renewed interest as well. The problem with pvp was a combination of bad decisions and neglect. Castle's reworking of the pvp system was extremely unpopular and made it more difficult for pvers to get into pvp. Add to that the fact that there was little in the way of subsequent updates for pvp AND the fact that the arena was actually non functional for a couple of issues (leading to a patch stating something along the lines of "arena is working again" as new pvp content). Despite all of this, there is still a pvp community. I think they recently ran a season, and there is another event coming up. Edit: also forgot about base raids. They half assed that as well then dropped it completely.