tidge

July 19

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.

July 19

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"

July 19

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

July 18

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.

July 18

I find this current take slightly disingenuous:

36 minutes ago, Forager said:

This thread has been so bizarre.

I said that there are bad actors spoiling the discussions here. I said there were a few pieces of guidance that would improve the discussions.

When the (unedited) original post is:

On 7/17/2025 at 4:54 PM, Forager said:

This subforum has earned a reputation for being a shit place to post ideas. It is suffering from an artificial, user imposed sanction on interesting or productive conversation.

Can we get a dev or mod opinion on any of these points? It would go a long way to fostering discussion here.

1. The dev's time and ability is an uninteresting and unhelpful talking point that comes up in a ridiculous number of threads. The people who cite it rarely have any idea what they're talking about and use it as a catch all way to "vote" no.

2. We are not voting. Posters will often reply something akin to "I'm ok with it..." or "it's a no..." like they're voting. The difference between voting no and saying what you don't like about an idea is subtle, but important for discussion.

3. Shooting down ideas is just not a thing. The only person who should be shooting down ideas is the person paying for them. Conversations with naysayers are short, unproductive and not very fun. You can like or dislike an idea, but if you can't think of a way to improve upon an idea and don't want to try, you should not be part of the discussion.

There's a handful of very confused posters that don't understand these things and they are ruining conversations and discouraging people from posting their ideas. I don't know that they'll necessarily understand any of this, but a tidy mod opinion on it couldn't hurt. If the ideas flow freely, you're more likely to hear a good one.

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.

July 18

19 minutes ago, Ukase said:

My understanding is there's some "code limitations" preventing this from happening. I've no idea what that specifically means, though. Maybe it's just we don't have a volunteer programmer willing or able to code it. Maybe there's some other issue preventing it from being a thing. No idea.

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.

July 18

7 minutes ago, dukedukes said:

We can't influence peoples expectations on a first impression, there's no real opportunity. Having a reactionless and reply free option like GooglyMoogly mentioned is a good alternative for those who understand (or find out) their ideas will be criticized.

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

July 18

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.

July 18

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

July 18

July 18

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

July 18

Lots of good stuff I agree with:

15 hours ago, WumpusRat said:

The cooldowns are long, but proper slotting can bring the recharge down a LONG way. On my trappers, most of my powers are on 30-40s recharge (and that's without using hasten), simply because of how easy it is to stack recharge on Homecoming, particularly on a mastermind (you can split Superior Mark of Supremacy into three sets of two and get 30% global recharge right there).

As for detonator, I never take it. Even now, when your henchies can be resummoned quickly it's kind of a waste. Back on live it was HORRIBLE, since the recharge on the pet summoning powers was something like 30/60/90s, so losing even a tier-1 could mean a good bit before you could summon it again, and losing your tier-3 meant you had to run away for a while to regroup.

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.

July 18

38 minutes ago, skoryy said:

Incarnate content was the devs' answer to raids and raid gear, so it had to provide some benefit outside of raids. Otherwise, why raid? Raid gear was still useful outside of raids, so, sure, why not incarnates in regular content 45-50. Also remember that the only way to get incarnate salvage and unlocks at first was through incarnate raids. Dark Astoria came later for soloing. It wasn't meant to be this easy to achieve. The issue here is not a matter of incarnates being available at 45-50, its that now you can get raid-level stuff without doing raid-level content.

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...

July 18

8 hours ago, Luminara said:

So did HC's changes "break the game"? No, not really. Easier access to converters/catalysts, bucketing in the market, these things definitely made IOs significantly more accessible, but all they really did was remove the hyperinflation barrier that kept most players from using them. And they were right to do so, because as I said, this was always the plan. We weren't supposed to be at the mercy of flippers who kept driving prices upward on cornered IOs and recipes. Character growth wasn't supposed to be restricted to the wealthiest or luckiest. Unchecked inflation wasn't supposed to be a control on IO accessibility.

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.

4 hours ago, Wavicle said:

Allowing incarnate powers in non-incarnate content, and in below level 50 content, has been a much bigger problem for the game than IOs in my opinion.

probably only the alpha slot should apply from level 45 through level 49, the other incarnate powers should only be available in level 50+ content, and maybe even only in incarnate content.

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.

July 18

8 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

Here's a real question for anyone whose posted in this sub thread - how many posters have shared an idea or suggestion and actually agreed with other posters who point out the flaws or criticisms of that? What a crazy world to think one's ideas are without flaw.

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")

July 17

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.

July 17

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".

On 7/16/2025 at 4:20 PM, Yomo Kimyata said:

What I would really love is some sort of input or direction from those who command. If someone makes a suggestion that is blatantly self-serving, some sort of comment like, "We will take that under advisement, but it doesn't seem to advance our goals at this time." If it's a really good interesting idea, how about, "That is an interesting idea." If it is technologically unfeasible, how about, "That is currently technically unfeasible." Or even a plain /jranger from a bolded name, so we know it's a non-starter and we can move on with our lives.

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.

July 17

July 17

3 minutes ago, Ukase said:

So, is this worth asking for? Will it ruin someone's life or experience by taking the one part of the game that's not fungible in the way that other enhancements are, and making them convertible via enhancement converters?

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.

11 minutes ago, Ukase said:

Right now, I'll tip my hand and say I'd like to get my hands on about 20 Acc/Dam HO/D-sync (whatever form they come in, all in the same pool, doesn't matter) and another 20 acc/threat/rec.

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.

July 17

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

July 17

17 minutes ago, Ukase said:

The irony of confusing people with a confused reaction is almost funny.

July 17

I find /Traps on MMs to be incredibly powerful. In most team content (fighting packs of critters on large maps), it can be less obviously useful (especially if the team is fast-moving) than sets which buff allies or directly target opponents. Solo it is awesome.

I suspect that the OP has allowed preconceptions to get in the way of seeing how Traps actually excels.

July 17

18 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

When I think of the name Suggestions Forum, I think of a Suggestions Box where people anonymously suggest ideas that are examined by management. Sometimes the slot in the box leads directly to a shredder, but at least the people who post feel some level of agency.

As long as none of the suggestion are made public, and everyone who makes a suggestion will accept that the suggestion will be discarded unread, this seems perfectly acceptable.

July 17

8 hours ago, FupDup said:

I'm not one of the "make the game harder" people, but the part of the Council buffs that got complained about was how tanky/spongey they became, especially considering some of them could rez after you finally whittled down their health bars. Bullet sponges aren't challenging, just tedious and annoying.

Live FREEM or Die.

July 16

3 hours ago, TygerDarkstorm said:

Galvanic Sentinel can be kinda clunky and can be eliminated from a build if desired. My Dark/ElecAff does not use it because my wolf pet is more reliable for chaining off of. And dumping it was advice I was given here on the forums at the time, not sure if this has changed since then (it's been like a year at this point I think).

This has basically been my strategy. I delayed the Sentinel until I was ready to start picking most of the /Elec powers... perhaps a P2W pet would do just as well.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Store

Articles

Patch Notes

Posts posted by tidge