PoptartsNinja

In this case, I think it's happened because the Valentines code is active on the live server. If you look at the version numbers, the test server is a version or so behind live.

I honestly don't hate the idea of turning clear mind into an anti-mez bubble (like Dispersion Bubble) that the empath also benefits from. I'm not sure it's needed, but it wouldn't be terrible and it's not like self mez-protection is something buff classes never get. It'd be nice to reduce some of the busywork clickies to make them less irritating, and an emp that doesn't have to constantly re-apply clear mind can do other things--like blasting--while waiting for their longer duration buffs to cooldown. I don't see that change being useful for farming either, since a "pocket healer" requires a farmer to not over-cap their aggro, most melees have toggle mez protection already, and it's pretty trivial for a tank to pick up enough regen to be able to survive most anything anyway.

Manticore's etymology: from Latin manticora, from Greek mantikhoras, corruption of martikhoras, perhaps from Iranian compound *mar-tiya-khvara "man-eater."

While I think this idea is interesting, I think it bumps into a few hurdles and is probably better represented by adding more temp powers. That said: If they wanted to add a summon Rikti drone temp (or do my old Rikti VEAT suggestion), that'd be cool. Anyway, more to hand, it sounds like you want a power pool that 'steals' a power from each enemy group. So, what I'm reading is, you're wanting a pool that would look something like this: - T1) Scavenge Attack - T1) Scavenge Debuff - T2) Scavenge AoE or Control - T2) Scavenge Buff - T3) Scavenge Pet Where basically you use the power on a downed enemy to steal a thing from them? Which is neat, in theory, but in practice I think it'd be messy and cumbersome and probably overpowered. Most enemy buffs are identical to primary sets, and pools are intended to be weaker than primary sets. The idea raises a lot of technical questions, like: - What happens if you try to scavenge a buff from an enemy group that doesn't have any buffs? Does the power just fizzle? - What happens if you scavenge a buff from an enemy group that only has a "toggle" buff, like the low level CoT's dispersion bubble? Does it just stay active until you click the toggle again, or do you get the NPC version where it lasts for X seconds? - How do you slot it? Does Scavenge Buff take every possible buff set (Damage Resist, Defense, ToHit, etc) and does Scavenge Attack take every possible single target effect (Single target melee, single target ranged, Defense Debuff, ToHit Debuff, etc)? Or can you only slot these for endurance and recharge? Etc, etc. I think this idea is better represented by temp powers, and I fully support adding more fun temp powers to the game.

@Wingslord24 , can you explain what a is, and how it differs from and ?

We know the cost the Homecoming devs pay to run each server because that's public information, and I presented you with actual usable "best case scenario" numbers you could easily use to defend your suggestion. Of WoW's 1.5 million daily players, Blizzard has reported about 200,000 of them play on hardcore servers. That's right around 15.4% of the massive World of Warcraft playerbase. I personally feel like 15% would be a "best case" scenario, as City of Heroes is generally a much more chill, casual-friendly game. But, assuming WoW's numbers are universal, that would mean of the 2,000-3,000 or so daily CoH logins, roughly 300-450 players would be interested in playing on a hardcore server. Which is pretty reasonable, but they wouldn't all be on at the same times. So, assuming roughly 1/3rd of them will be online at any given time, that leaves you with about 99-150 players, with probable spikes on the weekends or during prime time. That would put your hypothetical Hardcore server as about the 4th or 5th most populated server. Or, if we compare it to the current server stats: North America Torchbearer - 157 online Excelsior - 1100 online Everlasting - 515 online Indomitable - 88 online Victory - 57 online Europe Reunion - 164 online 2081 online 15% of 2081 is 312 players, assuming they were all logged in simultaneously that would make a hypothetical Hardcore server the 3rd most populated. Now, assuming that only half of them are actually logged in (because it's the weekend), that's 156 players, putting that server's population comparable with Torchbearer's. So, right around the 4th or 5th most popular (counting Reunion). But any European players interested in hardcore would either need their own server or have to deal with the latency that would make their hardcore runs much harder. Either would likely eat away at the idealized 15% hardcore playerbase; either stealing ~24 players for a hardcore european server or Reunion keeping those ~24 players who don't want to deal with the latency. Anyway, here's another series of challenges a potential hardcore checkbox would have to overcome: - What happens if the server bugs out and accidentally flags a character as hardcore when they're not? - Are they deleted instantly? - Are they moved onto a separate database server so they could be recovered with a petition? - If they're recoverable, what's stopping actual hardcore players from just petitioning to have their dead characters re-enabled, allowing them to 'cheat' and loot their own corpses, completely circumventing the idea of a hardcore player? - How much time are the GM's going to have to spend recovering characters? - How quick would that recovery process be? - Do deleted characters still tie up one of your character slots while they're dead? - What sort of grace period is allowed for recovery? - If the deleted characters don't fully go away until server reset, what happens if a problem happens 3 minutes before the weekly maintenance reset? The easiest solution for most of these would be "implement a development fork," but then either one of two things would happen: game updates would take much longer as the devs would have to update two different codebases and make sure everything worked on both; or the less popular fork (likely the hardcore fork based on WoW's numbers) would just... never get updates. But then you get into another question: - Do we all have to pay for a server we're not interested in using, or do the hardcore players have to shoulder the cost of their server themselves? Again, I'm not trying to discourage you. If the devs want to make a hardcore server, I hope it would be successful enough to be worth the time investment. But there are a lot of genuine questions about the mechanics and costs. I'd think you'd be much more likely to get traction if you tried brainstorming reasonable answers to a few of them rather than telling the Devs (and non-Dev suggestion forum goers) that it's their responsibility to figure it all out.

Honestly, my wish for Flurry would be to turn it into a toggle with a pretty intense energy cost (.3-.5/sec?), that basically procs for a normal damage proc's amount of extra smashing damage at the normal proc rate for purples and plays one of the flurry's ghost punches when the proc triggers. Well, it'd still have to be enhancable, so maybe with proc damage based on enhancement, matching a normal proc at like, 2 SOs and matching a purple at around 3?

Creating an enforced hardcore mode would create a fork in the game's code. The devs would have to develop code for each fork, with the possibility of that code not working on one, the other, both, or both (but in different ways). WoW gets around this by throwing developer bodies and hundreds of man hours at the problem. I love our Homecoming devs and I believe they're very capable and passionate people, so I'm not writing this off as an impossibility--but it's also true that they work on the things they want to work on. If one of them is really excited for hardcore and wants to take this on, by all means--I hope a theoretical Homecoming Hardcore server would be successful enough to be worth the effort. We just want to make sure you understand that this isn't a small undertaking, it's not just a "buy another server." Because you'd have to write or figure out: 1) How the server would interact with other servers. Could transfers happen? If so, that kinda invalidates it. 1a) How having a server that doesn't interact with the other servers would impact the database server. Do they use the same database server or do you need a second, and if you need a second how much extra would that cost per month? 2) Is a major bug with the Hardcore server code enough to delay pushing good code to the other servers? 3) How does the hardcore server interact with the auction house? 3a) Is it disabled entirely? 3b) Internal to the server? 3c) Severely limited? 3d) Do you seed recipes to it like the live server does or does it stay completely dependent on player drops? 4) How does the hardcore server interact with the e-mail system? 4a) Is it disabled entirely? 4b) Internal only to that server? 4c) Can you still transfer items and influence? 4d) Does anything stop you from transferring all of your items and influence to a mule stored in a safe place that will never see combat? 5) How does the server interact with rezzes and Self-rezzes? 5a) Are those powers just disabled, leaving those powersets with a gap they just can't select? 5b) Are they replaced? 5c) If they're replaced, who develops the replacement powers? 5d) What happens if a replacement power is really well liked and the non-Hardcore servers want it too? Etc, etc. WoW has hundreds of employees and thousands of man-hours to throw at questions like these.

Sure, could be. World of Warcraft has 500 full time devs. We have no idea how many of those support the 15.4% of WoW players who play on hardcore servers, but it'd be reasonable to assume it's somewhere between 10% and 20%. City of Heroes Homecoming has a volunteer team of less than 20 people. Unless you show the developers actual hard data that Hardcore would be of major interest to their playerbase, asking 20 people to maintain two games in their free time is probably an impossible ask. Especially since an Ironman / Hardcore server does exist on Thunderspy, and its population is... not large.

Requests for "hardcore" servers almost never come from an actual desire to play a hardcore character. It's about imposing a playstyle so that you can feel superior to people who don't follow that playstyle. OP, whether you're doing it intentionally or not, you are in this boat. We can tell by the language you have choosen to use. If you want to make a better argument for a hardcore server, you'd use actual data. Like: There're an estimated 1,500,000 people who play WoW every day. Blizzard's estimate suggests roughly 231,000 people play on Hardcore servers. That is roughly 15.4% of the player base. Assuming that the number of people exclusively interested in playing hardcore servers is 15.4% in every game (a bad assumption), if we translate that to the 800 players currently online at the moment, you'd have roughly 124 people who'd be interested in playing a Hardcore server. If you look at the current server populations, that would make a hypothetical Hardcore server the 3rd most popular server, after Excelsior and Everlasting (and possibly 4th, as we're past Europe's prime time and I don't know what Reunion's prime time numbers are). Seems pretty reasonable--except now, our small team of unpaid volunteer developers have to maintain two games, with different code-bases, in which the spagetti and hope that holds the code together could be divergent enough that one patch could cause two different game breaking bugs on two different codebases. At a bare minimum this would double the time between game updates, if not more. OP: You claim to want a hardcore server, but your real complaint seems to be joining teams with no communications that "zerg rush" and/or spam incarnates or whatever other tactic it is that you find boring. And I get it, I absolutely hate all the non-Alpha incarnates and wish they were disabled in normal content. And yet I don't see word one about you attempting to lead teams. So sure, the devs could take on double the workload. Or you could: 1) Lead a team yourself. Advertise it as an "oldschool" or tactical or hardcore or RP or whatever else team. Let the people who join know what you're hoping for (lots of communication, pre-battle tactics talks, pulling, no character faints, etc.) when they join, and people will probably be on board! 2) Limit the number of people who can join your team to keep it fun for you. Take 1-4 people against +2 or +3x8 content. 3) Pit your new team against the tricky enemy groups who will shred you if you're not paying attention. 4) Run task forces and disable whatever it is you think makes the game too easy, like Incarnates or Inspirations. Make sure your team knows what you're planning to disable. 5) Set TF challenges as well, like "faint limit 0," and make sure you communicate those to your team as well. 6) If you join a team, be the change you want to see: ask your team leader if they're willing to do higher tactics or planning. Maybe ask if people would be willing to voluntarily not use Barrier to increase the challenge, etc. Or do some character roleplay to try to get other people into it. I've never been on a quiet roleplay team. There are plenty of things that you could do to improve your experience. And once you're known as a person who leads a certain kind of team, you'll start seeing people looking for your teams because they're having fun. And then eventually you may find yourself with a whole supergroup of like-minded players who enjoy slower, more tactical gameplay, with pre-planning and pulls and all the fun old tools. I'm pretty sure there have even been Hardcore supergroups before. If you form one, and there's an interest, you could maybe use the popularity of your supergroup to prove to the devs that it would be worth their time and all the extra effort they'd have to make to split the codebase.

Broadsword, Katana, Battle Axe, and War Mace started out nearly identical, with Katana's only real difference being the slightly speedier two-handed weapon stance and Mace's big difference being the smashing damage. Over time, they have grown apart. Katana got more signature flavor. Katana's parry got renamed and some of its values tweaked. Mace got a huge upgrade when Clubber was changed from a no-damage stun to a T9 equivalent (available at level 8, making it one of the best sets to exemplar with), and Battle Axe's recent upgrades make it a really strong set for tanks. I'd agree that Broadsword needs a little something, but I don't think the sets need to be merged. Mace has strengths axe doesn't (especially in the early game), Axe has strengths Katana doesn't, Katana has strengths Mace doesn't. Broadsword just needs something a bit more unique to call its own.

Your origin is what your character perceives the origin of their powers to be. If they believe they've got psychic powers because they were born gentically "just different" they're a mutant. If they believe they've got psychic powers because they spent all of junior high trying to bend spoons with their mind until they succeeded, they're natural. Etc, etc. In the Web of Arachnos novel, Stefan Richter thought he got his powers from radiation, and so Lord Recluse is science origin; while Jack Emmert Marcus Cole thought he got his from Pandora's Box and Statesman has a magic origin. They both got their powers from the same place and at the same time.

If I were to buff Empathy, I'd probably fold some of the redundant early powers together. Like Heal Other and Healing Aura. Leave Healing Aura as-is, but if you're targeting an ally they get a second pop of healing that pushes the aura amount up to match Heal Other's values. Maybe a cheeky (very small) -regen debuff if you're targeting an enemy instead. It'd have to cost more end to compensate, but I think that's fine. That's what enhancements are for. With the newly opened level 2 slot, you could give them a useful single-target debuff of moderate value, like a "shared empathy" power that reduces a single target's ToHit and Damage for a bit because their heart's not in the fight anymore or something. And since ressurects without any bonus features have almost no value (and people never wait to see if anyone has them anyway), sneak a heal resistance debuff into Ressurect and let it be used on living targets so people have a reason to take it. Might need a name change after, but tactically making a target take more healing (and regen) for a bit could be genuinely useful in a pinch and gives the Empath an option that isn't "wait until someone stands in the bad and dies."

If you edit a costume with a tail (or sometimes other accessories) and then edit a different costume without a tail, the game "remembers" that you have a tail from your previous edit but not what color it was or etc. This persists even if you load costume files sometimes. I've found if you log out after tweaking a costume with a tail and then log back in, the issue doesn't happen. It kinda feels like a variable isn't getting un-set properly, either when the costume creator is exited or when a new costume is started. I feel like there's probably a "reset everything to default before starting the costume" function that's getting pulled somewhere but that may not be updated with the IDs of some of the newer parts, but I don't know the code. Visible, holstered weapons have a similar issue, where no matter what the game can't remember that you're using them and resets them to a default, which I remember breaking color choices if the default weapon can't be colored. I feel like these problems are related, but I have no idea.

IIRC the VEAT costume slot doesn't replace your 10 regular costume slots, so it's not something that can be turned on or turned off. The VEAT slot is given in addition to the 10 costume slots everyone gets. IIRC you can access the last one with costume change commands. Apparently, giving the VEATs even one extra costume slot was a huge issue back in the day, so I'm not sure how likely/possible it would be to give them another. I certainly wouldn't complain if VEATs were given 2+10, with other regular characters pushed up to 12 slots and a UI change to accommodate, but I suspect that isn't an easy ask.