tidge

Of all the things we have on HC, this is probably the most upsetting to game balance (when compared to other ATs)... moreso than any Brute/Tanker debate. It makes Blasters fun, but I think it is pretty crazy that Blasters got both sustains and crashless nukes... not to mention a reworked Inherent that mitigates enemy control powers..

I've never put more than 1 slot in Enflame! If I did, I think I'd probably opt for a two-piece set bonus instead.

I like this: I think there is some sort of cognitive disconnect when thinking: (1) Eliminating/restricting other critical user feedback because critical feedback is bad for a suggestion, and (2) A development team is more likely to implement a suggestion that gets no critical user feedback (maybe because the Devs would take feedback in Beta? *1). Unless somebody believes that the devs are going to (eventually) implement 100% of all suggestions that only have an absence of (negative) critical feedback, asking to restrict feedback on publicly shared ideas would be an example of narcissistic behavior. (*1) We have had (on HC) a small number of cases where the HC team implemented something that generated a reaction of "Who asked for that?" and/or "How did that slip in?"... in other words: negative critical reactions. Some were rolled back, some were not. For the huge number of player-made suggestions, I'd prefer some discourse happen before anyone touches the code. EDIT: The first example of a rolled-back change that comes to mind was the "rolling alignment tips" that would pour in. The obvious "problem" being solved was "what if a player doesn't want the morality tips they have?"... which on its face could be an issue for some players. In practice, players can of course buy any (level-restricted) morality mission they want... and the rolling solution was simply flooding players with notifications and eliminating morality missions that they may have wanted to keep.

I've long thought the only way Inspirations "break the game" is when a high-level character exemplars down to PUG with low-level content. Obviously set bonuses from slotting helps, but I can run relatively poorly slotted high-level characters through something like a Synapse with relatively little issue. It's pretty easy for just about any AT to "take the alpha" after popping one (or more) Inspirations. The Inspirations are a HUGE help solo, especially when leveling up. There are a handful of bosses/EBs/AVs that come up in story arcs (some low level, like Mr. G) where at at-level character will probably need one (or more) inspirations to finish a fight. The Kheldians get a couple of level 30ish arcs where a Council transformation of the map's final boss can be a dream-wrecker,

I've subtly tried to incorporate each HO/DS into one or more builds... but there are some where I simply can't convince myself that frankenslotting that piece is better than a different choice of a single piece or pursuing a 2-piece set bonus. For example: I've yet to find a place where a HO that enhances Damage/Endurance Reduction is objectively better choice of a single slot or leveraging (at least) a 2-piece bonus.

I think it is worthwhile to provide some context about "Echo" zones (only accessible through Ouroboros)... because there are a variety of reasons (some overlapping) why we have the Echo zones we have: Echo: Atlas Park is interesting... it is leveraged for exploration badges, but no history plaques. From distant memory, the original Atlas Park map asset was lost, and this map represents a reconstruction of Atlas Park at some arbitrary point prior to a revamp. I have the feeling that this map was developed a sort of proof-of-concept/sandbox effort that simply got added to the game, with the possibility that initial work on this Echo map probably being related to the work done on Recluse's Victory. AFAIK it wasn't even added as a zone until post sundown. Echo: Galaxy City isn't the original Galaxy City (which didn't have an AE building). It was implemented to preserve the History plaques (etc.) when Galaxy City was removed as an actual zone... it was the smallest amount of effort to avoid a lot of grief. I want to say that the original Galaxy City map assets were also lost, but I can't be sure about which ones were lost and which ones were not. It always sounded like there were some bad configuration management practices at one point. Echo: Faultline has a slightly weirder history, considering how and when the original map was revamped, and which parts of the original map were accessible/not accessible. Obviously the map asset was preserved, and AFAIK it only was made available as an Echo because of exploration badges and "because they could". History badges were properly accounted for in the revamp, although Vahzilok spawn points were kinda screwed up for the Numina TF. Faultline was originally a Hazard zone. Echo: Rikti Crash Site is pretty similar to Echo: Faultline in how/why it was preserved. This was originally a Hazard/Trial zone. Echo: Dark Astoria is preserved for history Badges (and kept its exploration badges). The Adamastor event location wasn't here, it was in Talos Island (there is a bicentennial badge in the approximate area where the summoning scroll could be read). This was originally a Hazard zone, Recluse's Victory is not an Echo zone, it's the level 50 PVP zone. I want to note that we didn't get "echo" variants for any of the zones that simply got updates (for universities, auction houses, AE, Midnighter Clubs, etc.) nor did we get an Echo: Boomtown despite that zone getting something of an overhaul. We also don't have an Echo: Port Mercy, presumably because whatever effort went into Echo: Atlas Park was not worth re-doing for the red side starter zone.

Croatoa is pretty bad... those unreliable students report a Pale Giant in the Misty Woods, but he's often roaming the Broken Teeth!

What level are you? Is it possible you out-leveled Dr. Francois?

"Bloody Mary, with extra Mary"

Assuming good will is literally the first GM suggestion in the "Concerning this forum..." As for how I got to the point of suggesting to @battlewraith specifically that the game may not be for them, that was after a whole lotta posts where they didn't want to test their builds on Brainstorm, didn't want to be bothered collecting IO pieces, didn't want to play repeated content to get XP/Inf/drops, was bored with the content they did play, etc... so it isn't as if that is my default response to players. I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you two... responding to every post is childish, and it often ends up looking like personal attacks. More threads have been closed because one member simply cannot help themselves but to reply to every post made in it.

There is no practical way to assign XP, Inf, reward drops except for defeating enemies in this game. The only 'alternate win conditions' for solo are for things like a %chance at prismatic aethers for completing missions... but even those missions require some defeat(s). You can of course play costume/base/AE designer without doing any fighting or collecting rewards. This is where I write: The IO system, specifically %damage procs, really help low-DPS ATs progress more like DPS-oriented characters. By far this is the number one reason why we shouldn't be entertaining ideas about a aprocalypse.... %damage procs allow ATs the choice to do more damage than they would by just relying on low/no-damage controls, debuffs, etc.

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?