Andreah

😄

I love this suggestion. That power's VFX are so awful I usually stop in the middle of combat to find the icon for it and get rid of it.

I love kinetics as is, too. No buffs needed. We have to be careful what we consider for buffs, some sets and combinations of sets are just fine.

Well, not for the whole server. But a group of players working their own internal continuity might decide their story took precedence over the other, official, arcs. I haven't been with a group that has done this, but again, theoretically, they might, and then their stories are it.

I don't see that they need any special justification. Within the continuity of players I group with, these are NOT AE stories at all. They're real stories, on an equal, and often higher, plane than developer written stories. They require no further justification. They just need the current artificial justifications we're forced to ignore to get out of the way. It's like this: Me: I use the User Interface to start a story I created using these authoring tools. My character to my team: "Hey everyone, I heard Azuria at MAGI in Atlas Park has some trouble she was us to look into." We go there and she is the first contact for my five-mission arc. She might send us to a cave door in Talos for the first mission. At completion of that, she might send us to talk to yet another contact for the next mission in another zone. That next mission might be a board train to start. After that, maybe it's back to Azuria, and mission three is a building door in peregrine. And so on. Remove the AE pretense that it's a simulation.

I'd like to see a new variation on AE where you can pick an existing open-world contact to be your arc point of contact, and use radio-mission style door selections in zones yo specify for each mission. At least, for some arc, let us abandon this fiction that this is all inside a holo-simulation and make convincing analogues of real story arcs and task forces. Let me start one of these for my team using the mission architect remote tablet, or something like that. Get me out of the AE building. %$!^#$#!!

Instead of Invisibility and Superior Invisibility, we could have Inferior Invisibility, and Invisibility. Or! -- Visibility and Invisibility.

This is my recollection and belief as well, but it would be great to see it be confirmed from code inspection.

I want more end game content; and more middle game content. I don't want more game-breaking mechanics on bosses. I want bosses that are strong and play better within the mechanics rules we have. I want bosses that act like commanders and not champions. Bosses that are difficult because they exercise direction over their underlings, and these underlings are dangerous because they're coordinated and directed by that boss. I want my team to have to overcome tactics and good play, not stupid stuff. It's a lot to ask for, but we're in the future.

It's almost always better to sell the catalyst and buy the attuned version of the random set IO off the auction. Don't waste a catalyst on anything other than an ATO or set IO that costs less than 20 million or so.

One could also sell the catalysts, and then buy back more when you need them. Sell high, buy low, and you'll even make a modest profit.

I also have an absurd number of catalysts, and would be happy to increase the pile.

I'm going to add that I play several support characters, and I've never felt useless on teams, even ones steamrolling things like council radios. Other people may shine more, but that's often because I'm there supporting them. Yes, some specific ways of supporting the team are more difficult, which Steampunkette listed out for a dark miasma defender. These require some set up time, or are tied to locations, or specific mobs. I think this identifies the ways in which some, not all, AT/power-set combinations might be disadvantaged in faster killing and faster moving teams. 1) How would you make it faster to set up a support character's area effects? 2) How would you make debuffs tied to an anchor that will likely die very fast continue to have effect? 3) How would you make fixed-location AoE buffs/debuff/effects more flexible for a fast moving team? I'll offer some notional ideas. I'm sure there's better ones. How about, for 1), if there was a power that let you fire off three targeted aoe's all at once, but were then stunned or exhausted, or something, for some period of time to make up for it. For 2), what if the anchor had a chance to instantly shift to the nearest surviving enemy mob within a limiting distance when the current anchor was defeated? For 3) What if some point-specific AoE's could be relocated? Why can't you move that debuffing gizmo once or twice as the fight moves around? This team focused, so the problem I'm addressing is to help support characters with certain specific issues with fast moving, fast killing teams keep up; not a global buff. These might help them solo, but probably only on the margin.

I prefer to add harder content. Or change optional game content so that it's harder; e.g., +1 to +4 difficulty settings; and leave baseline content alone.

If enemy mobs of all kinds actually needed end, then this would happen pretty quickly once they were at zero. Get the AV's end to zero, all its toggles drop, it can't attack, starts panting, and then dies. This is some sort of crazy dream we need to wake up from! Seriously, it would be neat if it could be balanced to work the same way for enemy npcs as it does for players, but there's probably good reason why it doesn't. Past that, having a new, different than powers-need-end means to accomplish this would work, but might feel very kludgy. Maybe once end is at zero have the drain start sucking away their hp, instead.

Harder content would help, otherwise we're complaining that teams that don't need support don't need support. If we're talking about soloing, I agree some buffs to certain AT/Powersets might be welcomed. But I don't believe soloing is not viable already. We have a difficulty setting just for the less solo-capable AT's -- -1/x1, no bosses. I have some of those characters, myself, and they work if you don't expect to farm like a brute. I want to call back to the motivation and design objective -- I believe we need to have a clear and accepted idea of what those are before we suggest changes. Should every AT/powers-combo be able to solo +4/x8? Should every team be overjoyed when AT/Powers-combo joins as the eighth member? Should every AT/combo be able to solo decently well at -1/x1? With bosses? How fast? Which enemy groups? A which levels? Should everyone be able to add something to a team, even when it's steamrolling so fast everything dies before you can debuff them? A lot of these, no, probably not. But which and whether and how much makes a difference as to what is done, or even if anything is done.

It's a very good market. Valuable item, most builds will have several, if not the full five. Not so big people will consistently recycle them. For some folks, it's the easy go-to destination for their convertering. And I know some people still use their merits to make LotG's to sell. It's probably the single highest volume enhancement in terms of trades per day. Locking the LotG market would be possible, but I imagine it would take the market slots on several alts and a lot of constant wickering with bid/sell prices to do it. Ugh, no. And this is the problem, increasing dedication to such a purpose often leads to having less fun. It becomes a grindy job. I did this once, 1200 in one day, just to see what the magnitude of the effort was. Not worth it. Oh, it was profitable, but I felt like I was not only swamping the market, but wearing my fingers out. Depending on which market niches one is in, a sustained high effort is going to be noticed by other marketeers, and they'll probably respond cut-throat -- I know I would. Even if the reaction was "Darn, someone moved into my market in a big way, guess I'll leave", that player isn't going to stop entirely, they'll look for a new spot. And that will now have increased competition. I notice the actions of other marketeers now and then; and I'm sure if substantial new ones entered the field, it would have effect. I encourage other players to dabble, and I teach them how to bid more smartly and what to sell from their normal play to get better deals. But I don't try to encourage enthusiastic new high-volume, high-effort marketeers.

I'm feeling a little lost of the purpose here too. Do we believe that support AT/builds are too fragile, even with a strong group? Do we think they are too difficult to solo, and we'd want them to do better when not in a group?

Needs "Left Turn at Albuquerque"

Has there been any further thought to whether the Kheldian travel powers are being left behind?

Truth. It is big enough for a few more people to dabble. But if everyone went after it like the serious marketeers do, we'll we'd suddenly have an efficient, but unfun, market with base minimum profit margins on everything.

Respec recipes can be traded and even sold. How about a way, like a new slash command, to convert an unused respec into a respec recipe? Such as: /respectorecipe <n> This new command would by default consume one unused respec and create one recipe from it. If you put any number after it, up to say, ten, then it will do if for up to that many respecs, if the character has them. Perhaps no character can convert their last respec to a recipe, so you'd always keep the last one. There is another side to this that must be considered. Respecs drop from Superpacks, and those of us who've opened Superpacks have a lot of respecs ready to claim, and this would give us a route to sell them. I think that is a good idea, too. The market price of respec recipes will drop from the additional supply, as well as the prices of other items which are supplied via superpacks.

We would need a gold plated costume option for Feature Creep. And I'd like to have a custom 60 character note that I can set to be displayed under to each character on the character select roster.

I think it would be neat if the MSR being completed could trigger a Rikti World Invasion event, just like the LGTF does. Or perhaps, a 50% chance of it with a randomized delay of 1-2 hours after the "Shield Restored" message at the conclusion of the MSR.

Maybe it's all an AE thing, that would more likely keep child protective services out of it.