golstat2003
-
Posts
2141 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by golstat2003
-
-
3 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:
But this is indeed the reason. They're OK with costume replacement temp powers and us not being able to see various kicks, but they don't want to allow this on a permanent costume piece, as it would require recoding all kick powers to use hand animations so they would be visible. It's not a functional limitation, it's an aesthetic one. They don't want invisible animations (other than within the very limited scope of the temp powers).Interestingly this is EXACTLY what the devs said in beta about why certain things were locked behind Aethers. There are certain effects and costumes that they don't want to be common. I disagree with that reasoning, but that
argumentdiscussion was had during the closed and open beta for Aether Costume pieces . . . and well we have what we now.-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Doomguide2005 said:
Perhaps rotate it through the various servers if doing it monthly or whatever time span is deemed 'good'. Folks who want the 2xp bump well we do have plenty of server transfers available giving both the option. And or replace or add it to the WST list as a 2xp weekend. I personally don't really care one way or another though it's good for giving some of my less played alts a boost. I certainly do agree with @General Idiotit's not difficult as is.
This rotation of it per server is really a good idea. Perhaps also grant folks some extra server transfers during that weekend so folks that want to move to another server during (like from Excelsior to Everlasting for instance) the time that can do so.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Psyonico said:
That’s really not something you can substantiate.
You can tell how many people actively play set X
you can even set an arbitrary limit on what “actively play” means so you can then say how many people don’t actively play a set.
However, unless you have some magical way to survey everyone who plays the game, then there is no way to know why the vast majority of people who don’t play a given set aren’t playing that set.
Since most people don’t visit these forums, much less post their feelings on given sets, you can’t get an accurate picture.
The people on these forums are biased in ways the people who are not on these forums are not.
and this is why I prefer the devs making powers decisions. Not players.-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, BasiliskXVIII said:
I don't dislike the Cottage Rule as a general principle. It's a good idea to avoid radically changing powers, especially when players have built characters and playstyles around them. But in practice, the way it's applied often ends up protecting mechanics that no longer make sense or that actively hold powers back from becoming better.
The real issue is that "core functionality" is such a vague concept that a power can be completely changed in feel and value without technically breaking the rule. For example, if Build Up were changed tomorrow so that instead of granting +100% damage and +20% ToHit, it gave +1% damage and +0.2% ToHit, it would still "function" the same way. But it would also be a useless power, and I would be just as upset as if it built a small cottage at my location. It would be just as disruptive as a rework, and arguably worse, because it pretends to preserve the original power while stripping it of all utility.
In other cases, powers have been renamed and redesigned outright, like what happened with /Regen. I don't have an option to hold on to Resurrect as it was, I get Second Wind instead. Likewise, Dull Pain is now Ailment Resistance. Even if the reworked regen is generally improved, the practical result is the same. I still have to rebuild my character from the ground up to accomodate the changes. So what's actually being preserved?
A good example of the problem is Black Hole. Originally, it made a group of enemies intangible, removing them from combat. This was often more harmful than helpful. It has since been changed so that it now pulls enemies into a central area, giving it a much more useful function. However, for enemies that resist the pull effect (mostly AVs and EBs) it still applies the old intangibility effect. So you now have a power that mostly works as a mob gatherer, but still retains a piece of its old design just often enough to cause serious problems. You can accidentally, or deliberately, phase out a major target and force your team to wait around doing nothing until it reappears. And because you cannot cancel the effect, it can easily stall a fight and give bosses time to regenerate or use healing powers.
This is a case where the Cottage Rule is preventing a usable power from being a good one. The power has already changed in function, but because a piece of the old behavior is still technically present, it can't be properly cleaned up without violating the letter of the rule. That is not preserving the spirit of the game. It is preserving a design legacy for its own sake.
I understand the desire to avoid disrupting players who return after long breaks, only to find their favorite powers completely unrecognizable. But there has to be room for thoughtful, targeted reworks when powers are broadly disliked, rarely used, or designed for a game that only ever existed in the launch devs' theorycrafting. Used wisely, the Cottage Rule is a helpful guideline. Applied rigidly, it becomes an excuse not to fix things that clearly need fixing.
And you have summed up my issues with this rule perfectly. Thanks -
5 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:
OK. Everyone take a deep breath. No need to all go insulting each other as body parts or otherwise.
While it's easy to get the ability to respec, actually doing one is a pain, at least to me and apparently Troo.
B.E.T.E.O.
one thing I liked about Champions online was the slightly easier Respec system-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Indystruck said:
Huh, wonder why that happened.
Not enough testers on beta, and a VERY VERY large release.
I myself barely had time to touch everything that was going out in beta.
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Display Name said:
Also, I appreciate the opportunity to tell the 5th Column that they're lame compared to the Council! Lol!
Porque no los dos?
😄
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, tidge said:
A comment from someone has done a lot of consumer usability studies: When the users can't figure out the thing that was obvious to the engineer, its not a problem with the users.
As a person who came up in my current job as a QA person and Business Analyst: 100%.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Clave Dark 5 said:
I've no idea how devs make new stories, I doubt they're the same system at all. Making use of the AE/making the AE usable for players isn't about relieving a burden or anything, but just like encouraging people to play the game - like costumes, why bother with them except to just encourage people to play? AE just shouldn't be seen as a "level your character" tool is the point, yes.
Devs don't have to review every story ever made, the small, small group of people who enjoy writing stuff for the AE often post about their own and others' works, you can just work from there alone. The current game runners used to have a member who took the time to run some AE works and award Devs Choice (they even hosted a story contest for Christmas-themed stories once), but that dev had to step away for personal reasons.
Nothing since.
I doubt they will find anyone to replace that person. That seems like a very boring and thankless job.
If you could make stories in AE and link them to the doors in the outer world to create new door missions, then I and many others might be more interested.
Right now AE feels too much like a simulation where you just go read fan fic.
-
1
-
-
I can see a few improvements as suggested. I wouldn't be mad at them.
Storm is a nice battlefield chaos agent if played correctly.
-
1
-
-
On 6/15/2025 at 10:09 PM, Neiska said:
The oldschool Castlevania's. Super Ghosts n Goblins. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Zombies ate my Neighbors. Adventure of Link. And of course, Battletoads.
All great games. And I would still rather play COH then any of them.
-
1
-
-
I disagree with the OP. IMO changes are not that bad.
And yes it was obvious the nerf hammer was eventually gonna hit plant control lol
-
3 hours ago, skoryy said:
Hard content needs people playing it and if the critical mass of players aren't, well...
(There is a discussion to be had of CoH running on an outdated Skinner box model, but that's for another discussion.)
yep that’s the rub. A majority of this playerbase don’t want the game harder. If they did, you would not see for example, most team leaders waiting till they got 8 players before heading into a mission. lolA majority of COH players want the game to be as easy as possible a majority of the time.
the other evidence of this already stated early is most TFs /SFs staying on the lowest difficulty so that they can clear it as fast as possible.
Keep in mind that a large portion of this play base for COH aren’t kids anymore. We have jobs, kids, etc. So spending hours banging your head against difficult challenges isn’t something wanted.
“Ain’t nobody got time for that!”There are other games for that when the mood strikes.
-
2
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Riverdusk said:
This game is closer to Diablo than Dark Souls. With all of the possible builds and IO sets maybe closer to Path of Exile even.
And I and a majority of those who play this game are fine with that. If others want challenge they can unslot their IOs and form teams of like minded folks who want to run at +4 / x8 all the time and fight nothing but AVs all the time.
The rest of us will be here enjoying COH as we always have.
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Psyonico said:
Also, fun fact:
I’m more likely to judge a kin on their ability to keep SB up than I am on their FS skills.
simply put, I don’t spend 100% or my time on fully IO’d out end game builds, and since I don’t, I see value in all team buffs.
Eh, I don't play low end enough these days to care about SB. With that said when I do, I think ID, transfusion, and transference (at the level ranges where available to the Kin, depending if primary or secondary) are more useful IMO.
-
19 hours ago, Wavicle said:
Fulcrum is OP, Kinetics overall is good. But if FS were nerfed it wouldn’t be.
Nerf FS, buff Inertial Reduction and Repel.
The second you nerf FS, overall, kinetics is waaaaaaay less useful in my opinion, even if you buffed IR an Repel.
Repel is actually pretty good on kinetics farming builds. (Gives some bit of safety from my experience).
EDIT: Honestly I don't think Kinetics needs any changes in general, but I can see making it slightly different for MMs.
-
No to the suggestion for the reasons already given. This would screw up how and many others play the game.
-
On 5/28/2025 at 11:30 AM, ScarySai said:
I think if the power needs proc assistance at this stage with three Hamis boosting it, it's a trash power.
Pathetic for a t8 power.
Yeah we keep being told the game is balanced around SOs. I have significantly agree. the advice shouldn't be "slot it to the gills" with IOs to make it . . . decent. That's a balance problem on it's face. lol
-
1
-
-
On 5/27/2025 at 12:55 PM, Super Atom said:
Is min/no-FX planned? Brain armor seems like it could be a set with min/no-FX
I am forever calling this set Brain Armor from now on. thanks for this. LMAOOOO
-
2
-
-
On 5/31/2025 at 2:08 PM, Crysis said:
There's a third way, but I doubt it will be any more popular.
Remove Tab-to-Target mechanic entirely. Force manual targeting (click to target or similar) and decrease the base accuracy/to-hit across the board, forcing everyone to either dramatically increase accuracy slotting or look for external damage buffs (eg; Kin or -RES powers).
They gave us tougher mobs, MUCH tougher 4-star content, tougher zones, etc. Everyone clamors that the game is "too easy" but then clearly avoid all the built-in "difficulty sliders" you can apply in-game.
Take away trivial targeting and actually make selecting the correct target and hitting it count, you'll see systemic challenges across the entire playerbase.
Yeah you are right. This is dead on arrival. lol
-
On 5/30/2025 at 12:46 PM, Gerswin said:
These changes don't effect 4* or most speed teams at all. There is a minor effect on tank fire farmers. They hammer the 'All melee KM ITF' and tank tf soloists the most. I just find it amusing the types of gameplay that the devs feel they need to nerf.
Overall, I like the new content but I am disappointed in all the changes that make me respec 100+ toons with dev statements that more changes are coming that will necessitate even more respecs. I guess fine balancing details are important to some people but I just want stability so I can dust off an old toon without having a frustratingly obsolete build.
Honestly anything that doesn't feel fun to play will be getting mothballed. I don't have the patience anymore to deal with the ridiculousness of the respec system/screen. (IMO one of the worst parts of City of Heroes -- not HC fault, it's always been that way. Champions Online improved this a bit.).
I'll just play anything else (Set or AT as needed). I'm used to it with HC changes by now. lol
-
On 5/29/2025 at 5:41 AM, Auroxis said:
Back when the Tanker changes were first introduced I warned against that exact scenario of Tankers competing against Brutes. The changes in this patch basically do away with the increased damage scalars on the AoE's, but keeping the AoE aggro machine alive and giving Tanker an identity that doesn't clash with anything other AT's have to offer.
This is a step in the right direction, and is a step that can be built upon. Whether it be by expanding on this theme (giving tanker taunt a higher target cap? giving tanker more team supporty stuff?) or by beginning work on Brute identity (even better early game? the ability to choose what fury gives you?).
I'd encourage continued work on this in a later page.
I'd appreciate if they FINALLY focus on the work of improving Brutes as you said. I disagree that they need to do anything else with Tankers for now (for now being in the next year or two). Enough is enough, let's please focus on making Brutes better as you and others allude to. Continuing to futz around with Tankers is just ignoring the large (FURIOUS 😝) elephant in the room. lol
-
21 hours ago, Troo said:
so long as such change did not impact other aspect in trade offs. (that's what happens)
Oh knowing the current devs, I can EASILY see them insisting on some tradeoffs
So with that assumption, I think Tar Patch should be left alone.
Shoo. Look away devs! lol
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, arcane said:
@golstat2003 Doing this any time at zero cost would absolutely be a non-starter. That would mean there will never again be a point to having more than 6 T4 Incarnate powers, and would thus retroactively render so many hundreds or thousands of gameplay hours a complete waste of time. If veteran players aren’t somehow reimbursed that would be a pretty major middle finger.
Imagine being one of those players that worked hard to unlock every T4. Their efforts would mean zero with your suggestion. Several steps too far.
My proposed boundaries under which I wouldn’t see this change as a step too far:
Minimum frequency - once per character
Maximum frequency - once per year per character
Minimum cost - 100 million influence
Maximum cost - 500 million influence
very very good points. Agreed with the proposed boundaries. 😊
Hardcore Server?
in Suggestions & Feedback
Posted
No thanks.