battlewraith
-
Posts
1110 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by battlewraith
-
-
On 4/5/2025 at 5:50 PM, TheMoneyMaker said:
Bow and arrow ninjas make no sense at all in a game that has shurikens available.
Ninjas make no sense in this game at all.
First of all, the point of a ninja was to spy, sabotage, or assassinate. So being obviously discernable as a ninja defeats the purpose. The image we have of the ninja in a black uniform likely never existed historically and was developed from theatrical performers (ie stage hands) that were visible in puppet shows, kabuki, etc. that covered up in black outfits to indicate that they were not part of the story. Occasionally, these guys would break the fourth wall and actually interact with the characters, hence the "ninja."
Secondly, spies would've used gimpy weapons like shuriken because they could be concealed. If you're going to be carting around a bow--don't bother with the ninja crap. Also, spies from that era would've used the best weapons they had available to them. In the modern superhero era that means guns at least. Malta are better ninjas than ninjas.
Regarding the rule of cool--ninjas were cool in the 80s. Even then, at the height of their popularity, they couldn't defeat Chuck Norris let alone a goliath war walker.
I remember one ninja story from my time in Japan. Some clan was hired to assassinate a lord in his castle. They got a small fellow to crawl down into a toilet and wait until said lord came in to take a dump. The the assassin shoved a makeshift spear up his bum. Sounds like a stalker to me!
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Excraft said:
I disagree. The prequels for sure weren't as well received or regarded as the original trilogy, however you needed the new Kathleen Kennedy/JJ Abrams/Rion Johnson crap to put things in perspective and to realize just how much worse the franchise could get.
Nope. You just need Jar Jar Binks. Or Anakin Skywalker in general.
-
1
-
-
Willem Dafoe on playing Snarky: "He's just a horny teenager!"
-
1
-
-
Kathleen Kennedy didn't destroy Star Wars, Lucas did, Starting with stuffing the third movie full of ewoks and having them destroy the death star again.
Then he did the prequels, which were trash, and then went back and inserted bad digital effects into the earlier movies. When he eventually got pushback, he blamed the fans.
He set a lot of these precedents.
Producers will continue to make bad franchise movies because people will pay to see them. And that was true when Lucas was calling the shots.
Outrage peddlers will continue to call out actors, producers, scriptwriters, etc. for ruining beloved franchises because it drives engagement on their channels.
Aging fans will continue to berate stupid companies for getting everything wrong while holding up derivative, middling offerings (eg Rogue One) as high art.
-
1
-
1
-
-
It seems to me that, once you factor in damage procs. a set that is only single target is even worse off. It has less options to slot different types of IOs, and an AOE attack that is proced out may do more damage to a single target than an actual single target attack.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, Rudra said:
Is that really a bad thing?
Yes, Michi the Fallen is an abomination. He can only fight one enemy at a time. He needs to go back to ninja school.
-
Instead of an extra slot, I'd like to see brawl get unlocked. You would be able to replace it with any tier 1 attack from any attack set or pool power. This would reflect the notion that this crusty hero has rubbed shoulders with enough other heroes to pick up some basic technique.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Ghost said:
Incentives are never a good thing imo, because the want/ask will never end.
Sure everyone will be happy at first “hell yeah, an extra slot at 100!!!”
Then it will turn into “what are you gonna give me for 200, 300, 1000?”
Or”Not fair, what about 50?”
That of course isn’t mentioning the fact that levels actually mean nothing.
I’ve seen toons that have been around for years, that have yet to hit 50. Also toons that have been around less than 30days at vet level 100+This reminds me of a conversation I had with my grandmother as a child. She told me that as a kid, they were happy to get a nice pair of socks for Xmas, but now these spoiled kids want all sorts of stuff.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Glacier Peak said:
I've kept my main at Veteran Level 99 for five and a half years.
So you're keeping that character at Vet lvl 99 for some reason, and you don't like this idea because if players got a slot at vet lvl 100, you'd feel compelled to hit 100?
Or you'd feel shortchanged because your decision to not hit vet lvl 100 had unintended consequences?
1 hour ago, Snarky said:At Vet level 100 you get 1 bonus enhancement slot.
Where would the slot go?
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, BassAckwards said:
That is probably the most wrong take I have ever seen. There is absolutely nothing “minimal effort” about badging. It has taken me years to get to 1600+ badges on one toon, and I still don’t have them all! The most challenging content in the game awards badges. I still don’t have “Master of” for all of the iTrials, because they are difficult, require extreme teamwork, and a certain style of play.
The pushback, is because OP’s first post described a badge that comes off as “Play my way! The right way!™ You naughty hooligans”
It's an opinion based on my experience. I said "relatively" minimal effort. I don't give a crap about badges and still have some of those "Master of" badges. The only thing extreme about it is expecting players to read and follow instructions. Badging is time consuming, I'll give you that. So in terms of spending time doing it, yes it takes a lot of effort. But the majority are for things like exploration, killing certain numbers of enemies, doing game activities, etc.
-
16 hours ago, branefabricator said:
Based on the responses, NO suggestion that would direct a path of play would ever come to life. Not just mine; I don't take it personally.
A suggestion for a 4star accolade would be a different thread, and very possibly worthwhile on it's own.Badgers want every badge to be available on all of their characters with relatively minimal effort. So anything that requires a challenge or style of play that is out of the ordinary will get pushback. Let alone an accolade that actually grants some sort of combat advantage. Sad but true.
-
8 hours ago, biostem said:
Except some builds already do this, but in general, +4/x8 should require 8 people. After all, that's what the whole "x8" part of that descriptor represents...
LOL, no. There's a reason you invest billions of inf in special IOs and grind out incarnate powers. And it's not to be mediocre in comparison to other people's performance.
8 hours ago, biostem said:Sure it does; One method actually requires you utilize your secondary; "As intended", so to speak. The second approach essentially ignores your secondary, and with the pet powers having been buffed to only having a recharge time of a few seconds, this is imminently attainable without significant sacrifice, especially since, IIRC, various pet IO sets already include recharge...
You completely glossed over the point of that post. The secondary approach you're talking about is completely hypothetical. It assumes that those upgraded pets, if summoned over and over, would be sufficient to zerg hard content. Nonsense. Those trash pets would get rolled over without having the backup of the secondaries. The closest anyone has come to supporting this notion was Rudra and his hilariously underwhelming "lazy day"-- walking an IOed build through 0-2/+3 content. And that only worked because after each fight, he'd stop and let the pets rest up.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Rudra said:
So I no longer need to worry about debuffing enemies to protect the pets, healing the pets to keep them alive, or buffing them to keep them alive. All I need to do is make sure my recharge on the pet summon powers are as low as possible so that no matter what I come across, I can simply zerg them. That is how the AT interaction with the game changes. It takes a strategic AT and strips it of any need for strategy at all. Just unleash a never ending deluge of maxed out pets with no other considerations. Who cares if my fully upgraded pets are dying?
This doesn't make any sense. You're describing two different scenarios.
In the first, you have a build (and presumably a "strategic" playstyle) where you try to keep the pets alive. This is the world that current MM players live in. One that involves a lot of repetitive upgrading because the pets die if you are doing content that actually poses a challenge. They die while you are actively trying to keep them alive and they have been upgraded.
In the second scenario, you build for recharge and end reduction and just zerg the enemies. Mmmm okayy.. but if you gimped your build to prioritize recharge and end reduction (and took less pains to keep them alive with the secondary)--there's no reason to expect better success than in scenario #1. It just sounds like an ongoing cascading failure unless your strategy is to constantly run away, respawn the pets and then come back. If that's what floats your boat, but it's not an improvement over the first scenario.
5 hours ago, Rudra said:MMs only struggle in high difficulty settings. Things like +4/x8 settings and 3/4-star Advanced Mode content. Addressing those problems is not something that the OP will actually do anything about.
A Kitted out MM with incarnates should be able handle something like +4/+8. And I think you're right that the OP won't make these struggles easier because the suggestion is about quality of life, not about making them stronger. And if you're saying that this change and the zerging you imagine won't help in higher difficulty--than that's kind of an admission that that objection is baseless.
-
1
-
-
I'm curious how people picture the carnival of shadows masks actually working. The descriptions I've read on places like the wiki describe them as porcelain masks.
I've always pictured it as, once the mask is put on, it actually becomes the wearer's face. So the effect would be like whiteface and makeup rather than actually wearing a mask. The old comic from the retail days seemed to support this somewhat--when Vanessa becomes pissed her mouth is clearly represented as an actual mouth moving, not the static opening of a mask. This would also make sense in terms of porcelain mask breaking easily, restricting vision, and being a potential weakness if someone could just run up and pull it off of your face. Also, despite the fact that all of the carnies are psychically connected, there is still some sense of individuality as indicated by the various named bosses.
Anyways, just curious on people's takes.
-
2 hours ago, tidge said:
So why make a suggestion that *is* pretty much the thing the devs aren't going to do?
Because people change their minds about things? Or maybe they'll find some other solution to address the issue?
Why spend so much time arguing with people if you're convinced that it's never going to happen anyway?
-
1 hour ago, arcane said:
This isn’t happening in reality. What’s actually happening is posters are disagreeing with you, and you’ve invented this narrative either to insult them or to get them to be moderated.
Your posts always read like a confession.
I think what actually happens is they disagree with me for x reason. I argue with x reason.
People dig in and they get offended. I think that's the cost of not living in a silo.
-
1
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:
I disagree with this entirely.
It doesn't even sound like you read the post you quoted entirely.
I'm perfectly fine with open discussion, I'm also not the one clamoring for threads to be locked, people being forced to stay on topic, etc.
My suggestion was really about disingenuous posters weighing in on everything out of self-interest or habit. I think it would be better if they didn't feel so entitled to derail discussions and then clutch their pearls and demand threads get locked when their feedback isn't appreciated. I certainly don't see how this would make anything worse.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, FFTMime said:
Anyway, I have never seen a MMO where chasing this phantom entity of 'balance' has worked out. Nor have I ever seen a MMO praised for it's balance. Nor played for it. Granted, yes, to a point things must be attended to. Sets can't really be doing something it's archetype isn't supposed to be, but the larger issue is one simple question. How many people are playing it? That should tell you a lot about what needs to change than taking out your microscope to see if sets are completing missions 30 seconds too fast.
Back in the day I had a dm/inv scrapper and it was badass, I could herd all of the wolves on that one AV map and bring them all over to the corner where the blasters would nuke them. If you were one of the people waiting, you'd see this writhing carpet of wolves approaching. People want fun. They want something epic. And they will always seek out the option that is different, the one that allows them to outperform in a cool way.
Under those circumstances, you expect the cool thing to be nerfed. Even things that are just somewhat overperforming get nerfed. When that happens, the fun experience is gone. Nobody gets anything positive out of it--people just don't have a reason to be jealous of other players. But that type of player just thinks perfect balance is wonderful. Unfortunately, I think they are the easiest to please.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:
It certainly didn't so back in the OG days and to a large extent it's not doing so now.
What does lead to bland sameness is your desire that "every set has a specific place to shine". "We're doing Synapse? Better grab my fire blaster" "There's a team in FF? I'm screwed because I don't have an appropriate level Earth troller." Etc... etc... Rock, paper, scissors is not really fun in the long run. People keep coming back to this game in a large part because it isn't rock, paper, scissors. They can (with few exceptions) play whatever toon they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. Balance empowers players and brings life and diversity to the game.I know plenty of people that left the game because it was the same old thing. The people that moved on, for whatever reason, far exceeded those that stayed. But by your logic, making things more or less generically useful is a huge win because there's a population that keeps on playing. It's a myopic assumption. And even if it does point to some factor that is integral to the game's success, it doesn't follow that everything has to be either rock, paper, scissors or blandly generically useful.
-
35 minutes ago, Chris24601 said:
Here’s an example of using the font correctly. Note the improvement in legibility.
It’s still not the best format for a forum post, but at least it isn’t a crime against humanity anymore.
I find that to be worse than what he posted.
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:
I think balance is much more important in an MMO than it is in a single player game. And FAR more important in PvP games. The problem with ignoring balance in an MMO is that so many players seek out the most efficient AT and builds, and if they are demonstrable better it ultimately leads to the exclusion of everything else. Part of the dev team's job is to ensure every AT with any combination of powersets will have a place at the table. No one wants to be told "Oh, you're an SS Brute? Sorry, gotta be Titan Weapon, otherwise you'll just slow us down" when joining a team or TF.
I think that kind of sums up the problem though. "Every AT with any combination of powersets will have a place at the table" in practical terms means a bland sameness to the game. There will still be favorites, but the end goal is to make characters broadly interchangeable. And the things that might make a specific set or build stand out get nerfed into mediocrity so that nobody else feels insecure that their character 's performance in general.
An example of this mindset, for me is impale. Back in the early days, impale had a long range like a sniper. It was a cool little feature that I liked about the set. Then at some point the devs nerfed the range "to bring it in line with other ranged attacks blah blah blah," Why? It's not like impale was a super damaging power that was upsetting game balance. It just fell prey to this impulse to put everything into neat little predictable boxes.
I has hoped early on that the different sets would be given different zones or TFs or somewhere that they would shine, Instead they went with the assumption that the entire game is one table(except for pvp) where anything should perform at the same level in any context.
-
54 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:
I agree that some people on these forums can be contrarians or argumentative or relentless or all of the above. And sometimes people with a suggestion are just as relentless and argumentative and take criticism personally.
It's OK to post suggestions; it's OK to disagree with suggestions; but it's not OK to attack each other or beat the proverbial dead horse into tiny pieces.
If you're at the bottom of a dogpile, it's going to take some tenacity to crawl out from beneath it. That was the point of the statement you quoted.
One engenders the other. If you make a suggestion and the usual suspects show up with the usual complaints, which they make repeatedly--there's your dead horse in tiny pieces. There's an implicit bias in that direction.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:
Such as . . .?
As I said before, I don't have a problem with your moderation. It's a mostly thankless job with limited tools to work with.
If I can offer a suggestion, it would be to manage expectations maybe slightly differently. At least with respect to this subforum.
In my experience, there are a group of players that view themselves as helpers. And quite frequently the "help" is about explaining why an idea is bad in their opinion.
This is wholly unnecessary. Ideas sink off the page fairly quickly. If you don't like something, don't engage. All these individuals are doing is making the thread tedious and contentious for people who may actually be interested in the topic. Furthermore they tend to bring the same litany of objections to every discussion and then complain about repetition.
I'm not against people objecting to an idea. I'm against people treating these threads as a "cleanup in aisle 5." If you have no interest in an idea and think it's horrible, by all means say so. But then move on. If you look at the "phantasm sucks" thread, it went on for a while with people making the same repetitive assertion that changing phantasm would be a buff to the set and therefore they were against it. At one point someone said "this thread is done, gms put a fork in it." That's the mentality I'm referencing. "I made my good arguments against this, now stop the discussion."
The thing is, the thread did not get locked and people kept discussing it. And I noticed in the recent beta patch notes: Known issue: Phantasm is stupid.
That's the point. The hope is to get a message across to the developers, not convince a subset of forum regulars. Someone taking the initiative to articulate a suggestion shouldn't be condemned to playing whack-a-mole with people who are simply not interested in the idea.
-
2
-
-
I think we, as a community, should probably be more empathetic to the deep trauma associated with being a second-class Kheldian.
And maybe this trauma could explain some of the personality disorders that we see crop up in other places.
At the very least, tell your doctor.
Forum Moderation - give me suggestions and feedback
in Suggestions & Feedback
Posted
In other words, "hair of the dog that bit me"
I think there is a large contingent of people that play coh who are in an engineering related field or are diy hobbyists who like to delve into the mechanics of things. Which makes sense given the mechanics of the game and the way you tweak variables to get desired results. Unfortunately, that kind of person can be a real pain in the ass when it comes to spitballing ideas or coming up with something new. Conversations tend to be "let me evaluate your idea in terms of efficiency or practicality." If you communicate that you don't want that, you'll get an argument about why they're being helpful and you're being unreasonable.