tidge

Folks who participate in the suggestion forum are supposed to assume good will. This quoted post isn't demonstrating good will. Folks who make suggestions should assume that their ideas are not any better than "half-good", to avoid having their feelings hurt when the suggestion isn't received with warm fanfare. One common issue with "excitedness" about an idea is that it is VERY difficult for someone who is "excited" to perceive the entire context of the suggestion. There have probably been a thousand trivial quick observations I've made in-game along the lines of "wow, that took one step longer than I wanted... maybe I should suggest it be changed"... but after some thought I'd realize I wasn't being the most clever or efficient about how to do that thing, or that changing that thing would have some negative effects on other things, etc. ... it is important to be able to tell the difference between a "me issue" and a "game issue".

So, about that thread... literally no one has responded with anything like "it wouldn't be worth the devs time", despite HC having Khallisti Wharf unpopulated for approximately 5 years of HC being live.... which was one of the OP beefs in this thread. We have had numerous suggestions for new maps (and even new zones, *1) over the HC years, so it isn't like that discussion has never played out. The responses in that thread literally are suggestions to make it more palatable in terms of effort and utility. Nobody in that thread is arguing against "wouldn't it be cool if...", but the best followup suggestion was "could we get it as an AE map?" because that one gives agency to the players. If that thread is an example of anything, it's a good example of a player having a quicky idea and sharing it... and then pretty much defending that quicky idea as if their life depends on it. (*1) It shouldn't take much effort to find suggestions for AE map/new zone requests for: Destroyed Galaxy City, Floating Mu Temples, the underground connection between Port Oakes and Cap Au Diable, revamped Boomtown, etc. Not to mention 5 years of requests/ideas for Khallisti Wharf. Thicker skin may be required.

The advantage of using the Fast Snipe enhancement is this: Fast Snipes turn the first 22% of "ToHit Bonus" into a damage boost for the attack... so Faster Snipes with more damage, *if* the character has significant +ToHit. There are all sorts of ways to sit at/near this point: Kismet's +6%, Tactics, Targeting Drones, fast-recharging Aim/BuildUp, etc. If your Sniper can maintain a high +ToHit, the piece is exceptionally useful, at least in my experience.

So we agree that Brute ATOs aren't at the top of the list to be improved?

The post-graduate level of analysis to leverage a Scrapper ATO (plus, ya know, actually having and slotting the ATO) just to exceed performance of Brutes with pretty meh ATO is the best reason to touch neither the Scrapper nor the Brute ATOs. Looking across different %ATO, it is probably more likely that a reworked Brute ATO would be %Energy Font or %Fiery Orb as it would be something like the Scrapper or Tanker ATO.... that is, if Brutes are already in the top 1% of damage and clear times... why would they get ATO that improve that performance?

There were always four possibilities: Devs think OP is correct and say nothing Devs think OP is wrong and say nothing Devs think OP is correct and says something Devs think OP is wrong and says something Only one of these things happened, and since the OP was postulated as "Can I get a dev to back me up?"... I think I can see who's trying to move the goalposts.

After some more play... I think I'll keep the little stinker of Galvanic Sentinel. Mostly because does a reasonable job taking aggro when I am playing solo and don't see an enemy. I can see leaving it out of a level-50 only build. I'm added the %stun enhancement to it... I don't really like that piece, but it does go off. FWIW, here is the quicky bind I use to cast the power that has my 5-slotted Panacea (with %+HP/%+End) on a pet, which I find useful for soloing low-level content. /bind z "+$$powexec_name Rejuvenating_Circuit$$targetcustomnear alive mypet"

My reading of the stickied post "Concerning..." is pretty blunt to NOT hide/lock threads to prevent responses.

You certainly confused me, because (1) we don't get missions to Echo: Zones and (2) the one mission to FF that I can think of during the Incarnate content gets cleaned up as part of the arc... so I have no idea why there would be an Echo instance of it. It would make as much sense to ask for an echo of lava-filled Hollows because of SSA1.

I find this current take slightly disingenuous: When the (unedited) original post is: If there are "a few pieces of guidance" in the OP... minimally they are couched in a list of grievances with a request for a "dev or mod" to offer an opinion upon... which in text comes across as "can I get an AMEN!" but in practice,,,, I don't know what was actually expected... for example: Pseudo-dev responses in red: 1) I agree! This is unhelpful! or I disagree! This is helpful! I kinda wonder why you didn't DM a mod or dev directly for this one... I can imagine it was for public performance reasons, but who knows? 2) Voting is cool! or Voting doesn't matter. Again... why would a mod or dev care? And if they did, why would they care how members reply, when it's been shown that the sort of responses identified as non-starters are actually allowed. 3) Fire away, buckaroos! or Lower your weapons! Again, addressing flaws in suggestions is allowed, so why publicly call out for a dev or mod response along these lines? The first post doesn't come across as any sort guidance, especially since it is clear in the closing bit that the three points are at-best rhetorical questions, two of which are address in the stickied post "concerning this forum". If there was a concern about "bad actors" or "shit posters" (it's not clear to me how you really feel) you simply could have repeated the "assume good will" mantra from the stickied post. If the entire thesis is "The subforum has a reputation for being a shit place"... maybe try to make the case for or against the thesis? For the record: I believe there are plenty of users frustrated because their ideas were met with criticism instead of rounds of praise. Some of my suggestions were probably more like ugh-gestions... but I didn't take the responses as a personal attack.

The 'limitation' is real... but I am genuinely curious which is the more true statement: The HC devs want the HO/DS to be un-convertable (and/or unfungible on the market) The HC devs looked at what it would take to make them convertable/fungible and saw a limitation that prevented them from doing so Based on how Common IOs work, boosting/attuning, and the fact that HOs were explicitly made (after a Live fix) such that they can only boost aspects of a power that can take IOs for that aspect (sorry, Membranes won't improve recharge times in Link Minds!)... I can sort of see why converters wouldn't work and why the market may not 'bucket' HO/DS. in list form: We can't convert common IOs IOs need to be in a set in order to be converted (see also conversion rules for levels, types, rarities) We can't attune common IOs We can't apply boosters to HOs (we have to combine them) The market doesn't sell boosted IOs We can combine HO/DS (and DO/SO are the only other enhancements that allow this, IIRC) We have powers that can take HO/DS but may have attributes unaffected... which is explicitly different for set pieces (Adjusted Targeting in Link Minds does boost recharge times!).. so they are effectively type-restricted rather than set-allowed. I wonder how much 'out-of-the-box' thinking has been applied to this problem.... but it is obviously a highly constrained problem.

If other users cannot react or reply to such posts, why should we be able to read them in the first place?

I suggest reworking this idea, considering: Making such a zone as co-op Finding a Lore-related reason why an entire zone might exist.... ... and figure out a way to make it so the existing zone doesn't go away / fulfills its current purpose. FF is kinda important, as is, with the stores, contacts, etc.

Some more evidence that suggestions take time to be considered and implemented:

Tar Patch is very nearly the L1 pick that all other sets wish they could take.

Lots of good stuff I agree with: I also skip Hasten on MMs... Global Recharge is easy to come by, and MMs have a hefty Endurance tax on all their powers, so spamming powers isn't always a good thing. I also have not implemented Detonator. It is probably more palatable on HC (vs. Live) for reasons stated, but for most of the content I play, and the way I leverage the primary/secondary sets it would be too much of a disruption to plan to resummon a henchmen. One of the things I like about /traps on MM is that I can skip Web Grenade, Triage Beacon, Trip Mine, and Detonator. Seeker drones only gets taken to hold a pair of globals that otherwise have to go into a henchman.

100%. I certainly had reasons to dislike the Incarnate system on Live... it's more that HC's (good, well-motivated) efforts to open the gates to easy Incarnates that has IMO diluted the experience of 45-50 content. Writing for myself: I find doing content like a Maria Jenkins or finishing a Patron arc to be much more enjoyable solo before I've gotten any Incarnates, and definitely without teaming with Incarnates. I also have something of a bête noire when it comes to Incarnate Lore pets: I can't get over folks that summon multiple instances (often with their multi-box accounts) to deal with something like an Adamastor summons... that second Lore will reduce time, but by no more than 1 minute (unless the player is a klutz) ... and the kicker is when those same players then complain that so-and-so didn't wait long enough for everyone to get into the zone before the GM was defeated. Um... you popped your multi-box Lores right on the GM...

The greatest success in HC is IMO the easy availability of enhancements to all players, including the attention paid to keeping the market vibrant. The HO/DS portion is still subject to 'peculiarities', but between seeding and merit conversions we've got a really nice, anti-inflationary ability to acquire just about everything else. 20 merits for a Steadfast Protection recipe? Thanks! Early in HC it seemed like folks were carrying over some ideas from Live w.r.t. Enhancements (gotta make farmers! gotta have Fire/Cold bonuses!)... IMO the real advantage of the IO pieces is that many ATs can improve their solo performance, making the game much more enjoyable. I used to hate leveling up Controllers/Defenders solo... but with easy access to %damage procs I can complete mission arcs in less than several hours. I definitely agree that Incarnate powers shouldn't be available in level 45-50 content... and I'd include the Alpha slot too (although I agree it is less of a big deal, since we can change difficulty settings). I can understand why they sneak in (we don't have 45-49 only content), but anyone who has done 45-50 arcs with Incarnates can see just how much the Incarnate system breaks the risk/reward part of the core game.

I'm self-judging my participation on the topic of suggestions as hitting all points on this spectrum: I think some ideas are bad, often in a very selfish (or short-sighted) way: often these are of this sort: "hey I wanted to do this one thing, this one time, and it took me two clicks instead of one, plz change hmm 'kay?". If no one else is pointing out the short-sghtedness... I'll jump in and look like a negative nancy. If there are dozens of existing threads (ehem, Group Fly) there is nothing more for anyone to say on this topic, as no opinion has gone unstated. Every once in a while I end up engaging with another member when I think they are misunderstanding some fundamental part of the game, or are making grand pronouncements with limited experience or authority. I think some suggestions are ones I simply disagree with. They may get just a reaction, maybe some reply if I think there is nuance to my disagreement. There is a mirror version where I think some suggestions are good... maybe just a reaction, maybe some vocality is provided. Sometimes I really like a suggestion, and I want to share even more ideas related to the suggestion (ehem, rework the last of the original power pools) Sometimes I think a thread needs some memery to explore the topic ("The Homecunkening?"), especially when the pitch is right over the plate ("Dream/Idea Police living inside our head")

We had, not too long ago, an emphatic plea from one user asking other users to stop pointing out the drawbacks of their suggestion... and eventually a power-that-is weighed in repeating (in effect) the sum of all the already shared reasons why that suggestion wasn't going to be implemented ...and that's when things got ugly.

Repeated "suggestions" in the public forum don't really bother me... but I have been (emotionally) tested to NOT reply to the umpteenth time on the topic of something like "Group Fly". I haven't forgotten a semi-recent real-time meltdown in the suggestions forum that included an actual dev response "Not going to happen" (which was predicted by *many* forum regulars), at which point the member that wasn't going to get what they wanted began sealioning the devs.... which became a miserable experience for everyone. The suggestion forum is IMO best engaged as a chance to air out ideas, especially if the suggestion is made with an underlying assumption that "My suggestion is no better than half-right". It is a safe assumption that not everything has been considered as part of the assumption, and it is also a safe assumption that not everyone perceives an issue as having the same magnitude as the person making the suggestion. We should avoid blatant rudeness when replying to suggestions, but OPs should not have paper-thin skins either.

It is worth asking, unfortunately there appears to be a coding limitation that makes them unavailable for converter roulette (similar to how common IOs cannot be converted). I have no idea if that same limitation prevents them from being treated as fungible on the market. Common IOs are not fungible by either level or type. If the HO/DS were completely fungible, there would be some amount of market chaos, but it certainly would smooth out the value of the rando drops. There is a sort of double (or triple) whammy on Threat/Accuracy/Recharge... There are a LOT of non-threat powers that take both Accuracy and Recharge enhancements, but there are relatively few (in some powers) or no IO sets that can be slotted in such powers that have Accuracy/Recharge pieces... so there is not even a 50+5 option. On the threat side of things... the devs seem to have forgotten to provide options for more Accuracy... with only two set pieces (from different sets) that include Accuracy at all.... it is as if they forgot that there are powers that are not auto-hit as well as having forgotten about things like the aggro cap. The real miss in the Threat set realm is IMO the total lack of an Endurance reduction option.

My approach is basic: #1 - Low-level Blue Zones #2 - High-level Blue Zones #3 - Co-op Zones #4 - Red Zones #5 - Praetoria / Shadow Shard