tidge

This is me... on both counts: I prefer "even level" solo (not just for MMs) because I've done elevated difficulty as proof-of-concept, but I find it boring. I can also 'survive' whatever content.... although Lusca is now firmly in the category of difficult and boring to solo, so I'm not ashamed to admit that she was just boring to solo before. IPerhaps it was just my (lack of?) reading comprehension... but on Open Beta I didn't see many people posting time differences. I posted mine for GMs, for Tips @ 50 and some Incarnate content. And mine was only for a single MM. I'm not salty about the changes... but because of the level-less effects, they hit *me* in what I do most with my solo MM. I can believe that the Devs would prefer no one be able to solo a Giant Monster... but that appears to have simply pushed people towards multi-boxing them... with some irony is that it is both easier and more rewarding to multi-box GMs. The current round of changes don't seem particularly inspiring to get more people to play MMs... as @Maelwys notes... there is no shortage of suboptimal builds and playstyles, and eventually that catches up with the enjoyment. It will be new primaries that drive the real excitement.

My comments were NOT about the program "as is", my comments about the 3-piece architecture (so more than "just a database") were what was needed to fulfill the purpose of the software. In more detail: 1) Database This is needed for the ATs, power sets, the powers, the enhancement sets, etc. Think "stuff we can look up on City of Data" 2) The GUI This is needed to that users can make selections, and see options based on the selections... as well as the outputs of their selections 3) The 'rules enforcer' This is needed to validate (in presentation, in choice) what the user can select under different circumstances. Levels of selectable powers, enhancements are the obvious things... but there are a wide variety of odd 'rules' about powers (VEAT paths, new 'pick one' powers) and of course restrictions on enhancements. I forsee this module keeping track of the net bonuses as part of its 'enforcement' (basically: allow/disallow and track, apply the ED formulae, etc) <- but information in the database feeds a lot of this. Most of the work happens in #3, ideally a well-constructed database can make the logic in #3 more straightforward and simple. Bootloaders and autoupdaters aren't necessary to do what people want the program to do... those are fine to have as options, but a "check for updates" feature is often "good enough". With relatively few dependencies updates should be pretty smoothly. As for "why hasn't someone built something else?" ... Frankly... there are only a small handful of players and forum regulars I think might have both the motivation and talent to tackle this. It is human nature to simply stick with the old tools. I'd like to develop myself further with database design and rules enforcing... but I simply have no motivation to do this just to have near-infinite levers to shift for tiny percentages of whatever. For me... those tiny differences in numbers don't affect my enjoyment of the game. The number one thing I track when I am planning a character is the number of enhancement slots... after that, I typically have a very good feel for what works best... and if I want to try something else in-game... I do it in game.

There is no waiting, and it is just as close as the train (each direction).

This is true... except against leveless enemies, a level 50 MM had the T2 facing level 49s, and T1s were facing level 48s. Now the T1 and T2 are facing level 50s, but with lower base chances ToHit. The level-less have the same chance to hit as before, but now they hit like level 50s.

I always smile when I see a Numina TG PUGmate take the TUNNEL from Talos to Founders Falls during the hunt phase.

I have it on good authority that a significant number of players don't even know how to see the city map. Source: Every Numina TF ever.

I consider the current stuff on Live to be something of a wash... but you can't have it both ways: (a) It's not a big deal that solo +0x8 takes longer and (b) vs >+2x8 solo MMs do better. I didn't play MM solo against +3 content... not because my MM couldn't survive, it was because my MMs take too long to finish that content.... and not entirely due to the level shifts, The fact that the T1 and T2 need less net +Accuracy to fight >+2 enemies is true... but it isn't practical, at least not for me. I can't even bring myself to believe this without some sort of statement like "the game is balanced around +2 for solo play". I used to regularly take my MM through +3 content... just not solo. Maybe I'm the niche player by soloing GMs and content at +0/+1x8... but since that is the content I play all the time... It was easy for me to test in on Beta.... and it does take longer to do these things. It's not necessarily harder... just longer.

TBF, Cap'n Mako's alternate animation for Knockout Blow is pretty much right out of the TOS fight manual.

I don't use Discord, and I really don't want to ever use Discord. To not copy something posted on Discord also here... seems rather petty.

I have some comments on "considerably more survivable". Because of the (previous, negative) level shift outside of Incarnate content... T1 and T2 henchmen were more likely to be hit by enemies that were even level with the MM (and T3). If the player had previously accounted for the level shift and had capped the henchmen defenses for certain content, the new changes haven't really improved survivability. Imagine if we gave all blasters a +3 bump in all defenses, but cut back damage by 3%... all Blasters would become "more survivable", but some wouldn't become "considerably more survivable." The sky isn't falling... but +0x8 content does take longer, per my tests. Against level-less enemies... the T3 and T2 don't have a net change in how often they get hit, but when they are hit they are hit harder, and they hit back less often then before. Against this sort of content, it is more fair to say that they are "less survivable"... but this might be considered niche enough that TPTB don't care. I doubt most players would even notice, I expect when zone Invasions start up folks may notice their henchmen dying sooner but maybe not.

there was a long-ago public suggestion to establish the connection; that proposal had the gate in KR at the same spot but was going to recycle the connection point to Galaxy City in PP.

I can really only speak to the most recent round of MM changes, as that is what I tested. There was one proposed change that got rolled back (henchmen HP reductions) that was well-recognized as being a step too far. For even-level content, MMs take up to ~20% more time to accomplish what they used to. Everything else MM-related (general changes) is pretty much a wash(*1). The first would have been a brutal nerf to both the survival of MMs, and their damage output... so hopefully that is no longer under consideration. The second is one that we pretty much have to *shrug*, because of a promise of some future improvements <-- and I am only commenting in this thread because those improvements are supposed to roll out before 2026(!), so I hope we can test them in Open Beta. (*1) I didn't test content (solo +3 or higher) that justified the changes... basically, "address purple patch for henchmen"... stuff I wouldn't MM solo anyway,,, so I'm disappointed in the performance change right now, but I have an atom of hope because it was more-or-less recognized that MMs would have to get something more, it just wasn't announced what. I saw General comments in game (from a player that isn't well-known for play performance) that was ga-ga over the henchmen getting 40% of (most of) the set bonuses. I am not skeptical about their excitement, I skeptical that the 40% (while in Supremacy range) are doing much... MMs tend to have to franken-slot (my main appears to do far less franken-slotting than most) which means fewer bonuses... and most bonuses (that can be inhereted) are rather small even before the 0.40 factor). Of the items "on the table" for a future update: I suspect that henchmen will end up inheriting 100% of the same set bonuses, because the 20% performance reduction is real... and set bonuses won't affect that at all... except possibly those 15% +Accuracy bonuses that are possible from sets.

Where micro-transactions lose appeal to me is when they drive behavior (on the part of the seller) to either/or/all of: "nickel-and-dime" the customers at every possible opportunity directing effort to smaller and smaller efforts lazy, lottery-like reward schemes

Without a GUI, and and minimal rules-enfocing, I think it could be done in Excel. It would be HIGHLY painful, but possible... at least for something like a single AT. With an actual database, many programs run SQL under-the-hood, there can't possible be anything more complicated that have a GUI to present the possible choices (starting with ATs, then primary/secondary/pools/epics, then powers) enforced by rules. I almost started this as a proof-of-concept... what stopped me was that I simply don't use/need MIDS.... I am comfortable checking City of Data and/or in game for power details. I 'know' the ED scales. I know the sets and their bonuses... and then there is my personal iconoclasm,,, it is really hard to get me to care about 'set bonuses' and stats, especially once certain personal 'point of diminishing returns' is past. This point varies depending on AT (and power picks).

Also to expand: The threat powers from the Presence pool are not autohit (and at least one of those two must be taken to unlock the 4th/5th powers) Some (most?) aura toggles with a Threat component accept accuracy (and threat) slotting. There are a handful of powers in other sets that include pets/pseudopets that provide Threat, and pets/pseudopets typically also require Accuracy There are possibly more powers that accept both Threat and Accuracy than there are that accept both Defense and Resistance, or EndMod and Healing, or Defense and Healing. I mention this only because those combinations (of attribute enhancing) are occasionally mention as candidates for "HO/DS" treatment IMO the Provocations (Threat/Acc/Recharge) are in the same category as Cytoskeletons (End/+Def/+ToHit)... there are a LOT of powers that benefit from only two attributes, but relatively few that benefit from all three... but for those that benefit from all three, there aren't any pieces with those combinations, let alone pieces that exist at 50 that could be boosted. These pieces have something else in common: The powers that benefit from them typically don't need many slots to achieve maximum effectiveness, so missing out on set bonuses (when only 1 or 2 pieces will do) is an easy trade off for better enhancement values.