Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

83 Excellent
  1. By taking the Ferry to Port Oaks, taking the stairs up to Pocket D (there are no mobs to stop you), talk to Null to become a Rogue/Vigilante/Hero, exit to King's Row, try not to die to the Clockwork as you bound over to the Tram, then take that to Atlas Park. That's the "no SG base" version, anyway.
  2. Feels weird to win something. I never win anything. Anyway, to the topic at hand... Anything you do to increase action in the zone will have to be done carefully. I prefer starting my characters redside but always end up making all of them a rogue just so I can find group content when I need it. Adding rewards and other incentives to the Rogue Isles isn't going to have the desired effect so you probably don't want to use this route. The reason for this, I think, is that all you'll get are people who swap over to run the thing that has more rewards, then swap back over. That's not going to fix a population issue. In a game that started with you playing the hero, playing the villain is going to be less popular by default. Something like only 20% of the playerbase was red-side on the live servers so this is pretty big uphill battle. Common complaints of redside content are mostly relegated to "I always feel like a dumb lackey moron", Super Speed is actively discouraged by zone design, getting access to Epic (Patron) pools is a chore compared to heroes who do nothing, and you fight enemy groups that are tougher through almost all levels as a villain/rogue than you would as a hero/vigilante. I'm personally not against challenging foes, but I know some people who quit being a villain after their first Snake or Arachnos mission. I'm not sure if that can even be addressed. Zone layout, too, might be a tall order -- I don't know what kinds of resources you have available and redesigning or added to zones to make them more speedster-friendly may not be possible. I get the idea of following a Patron for ability access since you're not "gaining" new powers yourself so much as using the tools provided by one of the Big Bads, but having to do a mission chain that requires you defeat an EB/AV at the end is a bit mismatched to the hero equivalent of "do nothing for Epics". Again, I'm not sure if this could be modified other than to just award the badge for choosing a Patron but that won't fix the population problem either I don't think. It's just a complaint I hear sometimes. That really only leaves the way red-side missions are worded. You're almost always a lackey. Judging from how things have been added in the past, the prospect of creating new contacts and mission lines that give you more of a personal "choose your own adventure" feel is probably the most realistic thing the HC team could do in order to get more people red-side and to stay there. Yeah, they'll still be a villain, but if missions allowed players to more effectively create the reason they're doing something beyond "me dumb crony killing rock people for shiny stones that crazy caster man wants" players might stick around. That provides a different kind of experience than the heroside where it's almost expected that you're just reacting to things happening and trying to put a stop to them because that's your job. Heroes are reactionary and villains are proactive, and right now, villains don't feel very proactive. The biggest hurdle though is Null the Gull. I know why he exists, but he's a contributing factor to this problem and I'm not sure that's going to be changed.
  3. It must be clear? Clear to whom? The people who want to get rid of someone? Because I've personally been a victim of a coordinated ignore chain orchestrated by someone who decided I sided with one group because of one utterance while ignoring all other words/context and convinced a slew of people I was some evil individual that didn't warrant interaction of any kind beyond an /ignore. This sort of "policing" is just going to swing things in the opposite direction, if indeed it's even far in the current direction to begin with (I don't believe it really is). My take on it is that the person who lashes out at a potential "goader" isn't any better than the person goading them. It shows lack of restraint and a justification for their behavior based upon the actions of another individual they have no control over. Everyone has bad days, so that doesn't mean it's a "one-and-done" offense or anything, but maybe if someone is getting GM attention for overreacting to a potential troll post, then the post being reacted to could be reviewed at the same time? Seems more fair to me to judge all parties involved instead of just the guy yelling "leave me alone" at the person who's been subtly kicking the desk for 45 minutes. Then again, this is a text medium and lots of things are taken to mean something they aren't. Some people just don't beat around the bush and get to the point directly, which often comes off as being rude or dismissive. Should that person get "punished" for not flowering up their posts? I don't think so, but in your system of mob rule that could very easily happen.
  4. Wish I could help, but I recently used the Rating system myself to remind me of the habits of a particular individual that likes to strawman an argument to vilify you and get a bunch of people to ignore you for no reason, so I would too would love if how that system works is clarified. I should clarify myself that my post has no relation to EmmySky's post and have no idea why someone would say that in the Help channel. Reading my response looks like I'm being accusatory, heh.
  5. I play solo, build for concept, and will eventually try to optimize that concept into something I think is neat. I wasn't able to do much of this on Live because I could never afford it, so maybe I'll get around to using IO Set builds this time instead of totally ignoring them like I did on Live. I also team, but only when I feel I want to and don't actively seek it out. I'll often stand around for hours waiting for someone else to start a TF that I want to run because I'm never comfortable with the star (don't like being in the spotlight, I guess). Sometimes I wish my contributions to the team were obvious, other times I'm glad I could literally afk and no one would notice. Depends on my mood. I also PvP, but I hear no one likes those types. Thankfully for the rest of you, I don't PvP here often because I get that fix in other games better suited to it. This is probably why I don't min/max so much around these parts (no reason to when I'm not fighting players and nothing is really a DPS check in a group). I try to go for badges when I can but sort of shelved the idea of having a dedicated badger like I had on Live. My completionist streak took a hit once I got older, though it still comes back now and again. I guess what I'm saying is, most people aren't going to fit in any one particular box. I'm mostly in the "solo" category, but not entirely and it really depends on what I feel like doing at any given moment. I change characters so much that I don't even have a single 50 after spending a year on the server so I think it'll be some time before I even get around to doing all the stuff everyone else is. And that's okay.
  6. I try to avoid doing a repeat powerset whenever possible. That's not to say I won't make an Elec Melee character and an Elec Blast character, but it does mean I won't have two Elec Blast characters. For character design I try to be whatever fits the concept and since I don't repeat powersets that usually means I don't repeat a look. However, I do have a few that end up being similar in appearance, mostly in the "street clothes" category since that field is a bit limited overall, but those aren't primary outfits usually and don't bother me.
  7. Really looks like a group of people all hit Dark on each vote for some reason and only Dark Melee/Dark Armor really warranted the discussion (Dark Blast's wonky cone situation notwithstanding). Darkness Affinity is pretty fine overall, and while I'm not fond of having powers that are basically auto-skip in nearly all situations I'm also not terribly keen on sets that make you want to take every power in them as that limits Pool selection and character diversity. That said, Black Hole could get a really nice usability update if it were converted into something similar to Worm Hole where you pull one group of foes to another location. This has nice synergy with both Tar Patch and Darkest Night and still fits in the theming idea of what a Black Hole sorta does. With that out of the way, though, there are three powers I think could use a minor tweak: Tar Patch, Darkest Night, and Fade. Both Tar Patch and Darkest Night are similarly troublesome at times due to their long activation and animation lockout. There are times where I'd throw a patch down in an area, and during the animation someone pulls the spawn to them and half the group isn't debuffed. One could argue that I should wait to debuff them, I suppose, but it can also happen solo if you get too close to a group and facepull them. Darkest Night is in this same kind of boat where the duration to summon the debuff is so long that the enemy spawn could be defeated and the guy you anchored it to is half-dead by the time it kicks in. In all honesty, this seems like a combination of a slow cast time and too much outgoing damage compounding on each other but the point remains. Plus, as another poster stated, while the change to allow anchors to remain active on defeated foes is very nice and welcome, this can leave the power recharging too slowly overall if you don't cancel it "in time" for the next pull so maybe a second or two of recharge reduction for these types of powers is in order. Now there's Fade. Great power; pretty strong and welcome teambuff for what it gives. I do not like how it constantly flickers, though. I don't have epilepsy or anything, but the way everything affected by it is constantly flickering starts to grate on my eyes after awhile. It's such a good buff that I don't want to avoid using it, but I feel like I'm being physically punished for doing so. Maybe something can be done about this? I admit I haven't played my D3 Controller recently and maybe this was already taken care of, but if not, please please please have a look at adjusting the persistent animation effects.
  8. You have the option to make things more difficult (though really, just slower) already. Why do you want to force that mode of play on everyone else just because you personally enjoy it? Most of this game's playerbase came here for two reasons: first, they could be a superhero. Second, it wasn't a slog that required an inordinate amount of time or personal skill to have fun. Both of these factors run against the notion that things should be harder by default. If you want things to be harder, then turn things up. Don't be surprised if your team gets smaller when you do it, though.
  9. You're trying to change terminology almost as old as the genre itself. While the concept of a DPS in the scope of CoH has marginal value (indeed, I cringe when I see it or Healer advertised as things to want or be), it's just the most common term people use to denote that their primary job is to "deal teh damages". If I were you, I'd just let it go.
  10. The thing you're missing is that it was an exploit, and exploits are generally never mentioned that they're getting fixed until the fix happens. The reason should be obvious, but just in case you missed it, you don't announce to the playerbase that you're fixing an exploit (especially one many people weren't even aware was happening) so you can avoid having that exploit be, uh, exploited more heavily and intentionally than before. Had they told everyone that they were going to make adjustments to farming, players would assume that means they're going to nerf it (because that's always player response to an announcement for change) and head into their farms with a higher level of fervor and dedication than before. If you arm the players with the knowledge of the exploit itself, you get the previous response plus additional players jumping in to get their slice before it's all taken away. In regards to this particular exploit, all that would mean is that the farmers "in the know" would pull further and further ahead and devalue currency at a much faster rate than what was already happening. It would allow these players to build a cushion against the exploit, which isn't in the dev's best interest when trying to balance a future problem. This isn't a case of something old being retired so "get it while you still can", this is an exploit that threatens the longterm health of the economy and giving any forewarning at all undermines the intention of closing said exploit. tl;dr: exploits are almost never talked about before the fix is live to prevent preemptive abuse of the exploit and to limit its current impact.
  11. Honestly, I don't really see Grounded as being much of an issue. It really only limits the use of Flight powers in combat, but you can slot your travel powers with the KB Resist IOs for those times you need to jump around to adjust positioning. You'll have knockback while in the air this way, albeit less, but your vulnerability window is only for as long as you stay in the air. I just don't see the issue.
  12. I never understood people who try to claim something wasn't an exploit because the game allowed it to happen. It being allowed to happen at all is why it's an exploit and not a hack/cheat, but for some reason, people think that's means it must automatically be okay.
  13. As someone who was part of that old mega thread, I laugh every time you use that line. It's your catchphrase now. It's also true. It's pretty clear the OP abandoned this thread though. I kinda hope that means this won't turn into Double Influence 2: Electric Boogaloo as there's still a small selection of holdouts only interested in their influence accumulation rate with an utter disregard for its effect on the economy and hiding behind the "it's for the casuals" excuse.
  14. Considering the track record of games trying to be the next "Dark Souls of [Blank]", I'd be worried were someone to attempt this. City's mechanics just aren't conducive to this kind of gameplay which I'm sure you were well aware. I don't min/max here, at least not to the degree others seem to. That said, I do min/max just about every other game I play, particularly RPGs, and that includes Dark Souls. The trick with challenging content is to make it worth your time to overcome, whether that be personal satisfaction or some other reward. For Dark Souls, that's generally "personal satisfaction" only, beyond being allowed to advance in the game. Considering how City showers people in drops, influence, and exp already I don't think making harder content for *more* of that is what's going to get people to do it. That leaves mere "personal satisfaction" as the only reward for slogging through brutal enemy spawns. Is personal satisfaction enough? For some people, yeah, probably. Dark Souls 3 became immensely popular, but almost half the players quit the game before even getting to one of the easiest bosses. That boss is also one of the earlier bosses. Personal satisfaction doesn't seem to be a driving force for most of the game's playerbase, even when that game is catering to the demographic that specifically enjoys it. "Bragging rights" only seem to be a motivator when said rights are relatively within reach of the majority of a playerbase. Now I, personally, have the Platinum Trophy for Dark Souls 3. I play the hell out of it and enjoy the challenge of doing so. Considering how many people gave up on Dark Souls 3, a game series notorious for it's "tough, but fair" gameplay, how many players of City do you think came here for that experience? I like City because it wasn't like other MMOs -- I didn't have to farm, I didn't have to grind, I didn't have to rush. I could play at my own pace and complete all the content with a superpowered character that fit a concept I liked. I could play it to relax. I'd wager much of the playerbase is in the same boat. Ask people in General Chat about what makes City so great and you'll get a variety of answers, though most of them boil down to how "casual" the game is and how "helpful" everyone is compared to your standard MMO experience of needing to eek out another 0.5% efficacy to maintain your raid spot in a guild that isn't even on bleeding edge content. Adding another difficulty setting just seems like dev time that can be better spent on other things. City isn't billed as that "hardcore experience" and I'd hate for it to edge ever closer to that precipice personally. I have so many other games for that; it's good to have a game or two that are just relaxing and fun with big explosions.
  15. Because taking things out context is easier, right? That's why people get mad about words, by the way. In case it wasn't clear, my point is people getting mad about words is silly. "Fire" isn't a bad word, that is until it's shouted in a crowded theatre or near a group of people waiting for the command to pull a trigger. Context matters. I'm also aware that in the scope of the game, the (volunteer) dev team doesn't have the time or manpower to consider context and choose instead to blanket-ban specific words/terms to make things easier on themselves. That's their right as it's their server. We're adults (I think), so we shake our head at the innocents caught in the crossfire and move forward because there's worse things to worry about. We follow the rules of the place we choose to spend our time. We don't have to agree with them all the time, but we have to follow them all the same.
  • Create New...