Andreah

List the next one at 112! :D Over time, you start seeing "magic" numbers in sales histories. 111, 1111, 12222, 55555, 123456, 10000001, and so on. Try to post things for sale just above one of those, and you get a better chance of it not being sniped instantly. Also, if you get several of a thing, post one really low first, as a 'trial balloon'. Then post the rest just over the instant snipe price the first one got. And for heaven's sake, when you bid on things double- , triple- even!, -check your number before you click the button! :D

The real rewards from that team are completing the task force in good time, with good drops, and having had fun along the way. Any good team, which a diverse team can also be, will get these rewards. No other rewards are necessary.

I'm also a large-scale marketeer (I don't farm). I don't have a "main crafter"; my nineteen crafters are specialized at various parts of the purchasing, production, and sales process for multiple market niches, and including two more who buy, open, and liquidate superpacks. I spread those niches out across them deliberately so that I can keep track of bids and sales and to have enough market slots available to not have to offer prices at artificially low ranges just to speed up sales turnover. There are certainly more people who market intensively on just one (or a few) characters as you do (I know a few), but I'm not sure many of them frequent these forums.

This is a good question. If the devs have actual data analytics that show these are problems, I'd like to see them. We had numbers for which archetypes were played from years ago, but no more recent data has been made public and that old data did not speak to teaming at all. I'll cut to the chase. I do not believe this change is founded on data; I believe it was a developer's idea, it sounded superficially good to a few of them who okayed it, and then got carried along in the mass of changes folded into page 7, and it wasn't challenged deeply until now.

Join a team or form a team -- problem solved! I have never seen someone not invited to a team because they're a Kheldian.

No, to me it isn't the crux at all. This might make it less bad, but it's still bad. We should not be trying to nudge team composition any way at all. Let players play what they like and team with whom they like, guided only by the fundamental mechanics and synergies inherent in the game.

I see advertisements for no-incarnate teams on very rare occasions. Often, someone is trying to help more people still trying to get to 50 or incarnates, not artificially increase the challenge. A person could also lock their level at 44 and then farm radios, exemping down below level 45 shuts all the incarnate powers off. I don't like parts of this update (any kind of auto-hit = bad design, imo), but overall I think it will work out fine. But, I'm the sort who would run Arachnos only radios if it were possible to avoid cave maps with them. That's the real reason I run Council PI radio teams -- they NEVER have caves; only sewers, warehouses, and offices. Take intangibility (and caves) away from the Carnival, and I'd run them too. Circle are a common "second choice" for folks, because they have fewer of these annoying gimmick features, but still, sadly, like to hide their mission objectives in caves.

I would have objected strenuously to that too. I do not see a problem this solves. If we need more prismatics, hand them out via dice rolls not team roles. If some archetypes aren't played enough due to their mechanics or UI's, fix those. If new players are confused about what the archetypes can do, explain them better. This system, and any others like it, do nothing but move us backward into arbitrary team composition goals. It is all bad, with no upside. Some variants of this might be less bad, but are still bad. The existing motivation for players to seek diversity in their teams roles is complex, nuanced, and fault tolerant; and derives organically from the way powers and game systems interact at a low level, and it rewards organically as well via better team performance in content. There is no problem here to be solved with superficial role- or archetype-counting at the team level. One of the chief distinguishing features of this game is it doesn't have so much of the class/archetype/role teaming prejudice other games have. We should be getting rid of what little we have, not adding more.

Oh, I assure you, you are not. :D For example, have a look at Yomo's statistics here in this thread:

I don't want a name! :D I do want to address this, since my read of the grapevine hints this direction too. If there aren't enough players playing any specific archetype, then address what may be putting them off from it -- don't obliquely address it in a manner like this system would seem to do. If there are specific mechanics or features of the class that most people don't like, see what can be done about them. If it turns out the theme or foundational mechanics of an archetype cause it to not be as popular as others, well so be it. Not every one likes the idea of being a merged kheldian in their character concept, nor does everyone find being a spider minion equally appealing. And the few who do are happy, or even proud, to march to that different drummer. I'd rather we not try to dangle carrots to get people to play things, all other things being equal, they'd rather not. And certainly not try to entice third parties to give those archetypes spots on teams that would otherwise go to people happily playing characters they do like. Let's stop trying to make people play they way we want them to, and let them play what they want, and especially who they want to play with.

I use my best judgment to pile mobs onto the team's current point of focus. If there is no such focus, I try to use it to create one. Sometimes that means I'm stealing mobs away from the tanker/fetcher if their placing is bad (which also means their distant aggro'd mobs might run to them now); and sometimes it means I'm taking them off squishies who've placed their ground patches in a poor location. Rarer times, I move ahead and try to set up a new focus from the next sets of spawns and hope people see it for what it is and reset their tactics. And ... sometimes it means I throw my hands up in despair and politely leave the team.

I would love to just click on a chair and then my character just sits on it.

I've been buying uncommon salvage in bulk well below 20K all last year and continuing today. That's hasn't been a real floor. Things are selling faster, but I am noticing more competition in certain markets, along with modest rises in the low-ranges of price swings, which is perhaps more people trying to get overnight or several-day deals..

I have been struggling to get this across, and you have hit it right on target. The most tanky controller may not be able to tank as well as the best tanker, but certainly better that the lowest level tanker, and least kitted out tanker, or the worst-played tankers. On any given team, that controller might be doing the tanker role masterfully -- and on the next team, they may not be tanking at all. Not only is it build and player dependent, it's also situational and can't be assigned correctly in advance from the AT alone. I still maintain that building a diverse team is already well rewarded, and does not need this artificial system tacked on top. If we need more Prismatics in the economy, just give them out for other good reasons, not this bad reason.

I understand the feeling. But I don't believe we can say a team is interesting just on the basis of the AT's that show up in it, except in a couple of peculiar instances that this system would miss. Even if I went in to all the rest of this, I'd get to a hard stop on this part. I would want to at least see a proposed algorithm that would track how players on the team actually used their characters and tried to asses the role or roles they're playing. Are you taking the alpha strike? Are you taking aggro off others? Are you buffing friends, or debuffing enemies? Are you getting mezz effects on enemies? Are you moving spawns around? Are you using your damaging powers? In melee, or ranged? There are too many ways to doing interesting things that don't resolve by AT alone. I wouldn't even care if these were effective, were they even attempted? This would say a whole lot more about the "role diversity" of the team than this checklist by AT.

Are you using the 2xp experience bonus from P2W? If so, you are not getting Influence drops from mobs in missions, only the other loots -- regular enhancements and invention salvage & recipes. Be sure to spend your reward merits well; as others have indicated, they're not worth spending to directly buy normal invention recipes, or even ATO's and normal purples. Always ask yourself, can I get this cheaper from the market if merits are worth 200K each? The answer is usually "Yes, a lot cheaper." Finally, there's some good information on how to use converters to make rare/unique IO's for yourself or to sell at a profit. It's easy. Here's a thread on one specific kind of sellable you can easily make. And here is a YT video on the same topic, starting from absolutely nothing.

We'll hurry and advertise it as much as possible until then!

If you would like to see a detailed report of what drops from them, check this out:

So you agree it wasn't worth the first comment? Let's have productive discussion instead of telling the other side it doesn't bother them when clearly it does.

How about, since you could only get one per day, you won't miss it when it's not implemented.

I'm going to take more issue with the idea that your role in a group can be evaluated merely from your AT, rather than from how you actually build and play your character. Unless the game is going to track and evaluate your actions on the team while the content is played, this is ridiculous. A lot of people have referred to the "roles" called out in character creation. Honest to god, those should be removed too. Even there has to be such a thing, I'd put a x/10 score for each AT for how easily it can be built to perform each role. And even that is a gross disservice to how the game actually works.

As has been said several times, playing without the bonus will be seen as playing with a penalty; that's just human nature.

It take a lot from another player to get me to be judgmental -- I've been on the receiving end of those, myself. And it can go both ways -- if a team leader is being too picky over your playstyle to the point you're not having fun, well, add a note and move on. It doesn't mean they're a bad person -- it just means you don't enjoy playing with them.

That's fair. But it doesn't change that the proposed system is still entirely based on archetypes. I'll make an edit.

I would prefer a high-accuracy attack to an auto-hit. Give people a reason to time using a large insp or casting a strong short lived defense buff, or let them rationalize there's at least a chance of it missing even if they stay close.