Leogunner

Choir? Like a Choir of Pain? Sounds like a Sonic/Pain Corruptor. Maybe Cathedral of Pain fitting into the origin? I dunno. I can agree with you somewhat, OP. Been leveling a new Kat/SR scrapper and it can certainly be annoying when the last mob flees off with a sliver of health. But I can also see how that incentivizes other powers like controls or slow movement or unsuppressed movement. Since my Kat/SR has no travel power, he gets around pretty good at all times so I can sometimes zip in the mob's path before it can get away. Imagining how the situation plays out if this were a comic just makes my character seem even more awesome.

Thanks. My main concern is the set's effects may not fall in line with mainstream fire farm, min/max DPS type of playstyles that are all the rage now. My initial thoughts as I'm rereading it (at least 1/3 of the idea sparked into existence as I was typing it all out) is this would make for a decent setup for a Tanktroller type that might be made to hold AVs even. But I don't believe there are any debuffs out there that reduce resistance to mez so I had no idea what numbers to use so that could be something improved. But I certainly wanted to make sure the set didn't do too many things.

FYI, I stole your format for a post of mine ;D https://forums.homecomingservers.com/index.php/topic,6042.msg49089.html#msg49089 As for my criticisms of the set, I always find it difficult to gauge Blast sets because their primary customer is the Blaster and they tend to need effects built in to help them survive. But it's kind of related to the damage typings paired in the set as well, usually having the more resisted types having more utility...but then you get sets like Beam Rifle lol That being said, I'd probably suggest the damage be primarily Fire damage (not enough sets that utilize the damage type, along with cold) with a chance of Energy DoT. I suppose it could be reversed too. But the pairing is pretty exotic and likely more effective than Psi could ever manage. For the mechanic, I'd see it being quite complex to assemble. I believe the Savage Melee set was suppose to have something similar but ultimately much of the added bonuses fell through (that is, the attacks were suppose to have building effects depending on how much blood frenzy you have but it's either "max stacks" or "what stacks?" and many of the non-consumer skills were scaled back in their effects too). Could have been time constraints though...anyway, I think resource mechanics can get a bit complex. I haven't played Water Blast yet so maybe that is the example I should be looking at. I would also warn on using too many complexities within a single set. I think the "set 3 patches" power is a cool take on that mechanic but you could probably replace the toggle nuke for a standard click that just tics damage around you (you could even move some while it ticking)...or just make it a standard nuke for animations sake. You'd probably be able to make a better looking visual if it were a stationary boom.

Reaper Scythe Both a reskin and a unique take on the Battle Axe melee set. Note: because I liked their suggestion so much, this idea is going off another posters' suggested changes for Battle Axe (here). tl;dr of those battle axe changes is, axe's secondary effect would be slightly extended range (+2 to +4 feet) with some extra cleave action (some attacks are actually narrow cones) and the overall set is improved to have some higher damage attacks in conjunction to having higher recharge times. It's important to note these changes because my set takes away much of that in exchange for its unique mechanic. To reiterate, I'm suggesting this have the same cast times for most of its powers so that the set's animations can also be ported to Battle Axe as an option as well as vice versa. This, I feel (in a fantasy world where new sets are being animated), could be a way to breath new life into old sets without directly tipping the scales into power creep. The same could technically be done for any older sets, really. Another note, this is a 2-handed set. This means, technically, you could use Battle Axe animations if you want to pair this with shield or if you are Battle Axe and want to use the 2-handed animations, you cannot do so if you have Shield Defense. If you're an American comicbook purist who feels there should be an equivalent somewhere amongst DC or Marvel, this suggestion may not be for you. I'm a comicbook casual but an anime/manga enthusiast, mostly. Archetypes Reaper Scythe is a melee attack set for current Tanker, Brute and Scrapper archetypes. I'd like a version of Battle Axe for Stalker too so that I could create a scythe wielding assassin. Mechanics Reaper Scythe's unique mechanic is called Marked for Death. Every attack within the set that does damage has a small chance of granting a target the "marked for death" effect. A target under the effects of Fear has a moderately increased chance to gain the "marked for death" effect and a target under the effects of Sleep have a greatly increased chance to gain the "marked for death" effect. Reaper Scythe attacks against a target under this effect lowers their resistance to Sleep, Fear, Immobilize, Hold and Disorient effects. Marked for Death does not stack or refresh but instead, pays its effects off when it expires. As a granted power, its effects are determined by the user (the target with the "marked for death" effect). On minion and below targets, "marked for death" lasts 6 seconds. Upon expiration, the target will cast an AoE mag 2 4sec fear around itself and be immune to "marked for death" for 6 seconds. If the target dies before it expires, it will 100% pass this effect onto another minion foe within 20ft and have a moderate (20%) chance to also pass the effect onto a Lt. or above target. On a Lt or above (including players), "marked for death" lasts 6 seconds. Upon expiration, the target receives a moderate amount of Negative Energy damage and -1 mag protection for 18sec. To clarify, Reaper Scythe attacks deal Lethal damage only while Marked for Death deals Negative Energy damage to Lt or above. Name Primary Secondary Description Throat Slash 1 1 Melee, Moderate DMG(lethal), 40% Foe Knockdown, +Mark for Death Butcher 1 2 Melee, High DMG(lethal), 40% Foe Knockdown, +Mark for Death Dissect 2 4 Melee, Narrow Cone, Superior DMG(lethal), +Mark for Death Taunt 6 10 Ranged (Targeted AoE), Foe Taunt, -Range Reap 8 16 Self +DMG, +ToHit, Special +Absorb Crescent Cut 12 20 Melee, Superior DMG(lethal), 70% Foe Knockup, +Mark for Death Rift into the Abyss 18 28 PBAoE, Foe -ToHit, Foe Terrorize Pull 26 35 Close, Extreme DMG(lethal), Foe Teleport, +Mark for Death Guillotine 32 38 Melee Cone (180 degrees), Superior DMG(lethal), Foe +Mark for Death, +Special Powers, Alphabetically: Butcher Melee, Single Target, High Lethal Damage, Slow Recharge Counterpart to Battle Axe's Chop, this can only hit one foe but shares the same damage. A foe hit with Butcher has a chance to be Marked for Death and Knocked down. Set Categories: Melee, Knockback Crescent Cut Melee, Single Target, Superior Lethal Damage, Slow Recharge Counterpart to Battle Axe's Swoop, and shares the same damage amount. A deadly vertical slash can send your target flying upward. A foe hit with Crescent Cut has a chance to be Marked for Death and Knocked up. Set Categories: Melee, Knockback Dissect Narrow Cone, 3 Targets, Superior Lethal Damage, Slow Recharge Counterpart to Battle Axe's Gash, this shares the same cone radius but without the extra range or knockdown. This attack is slow but can strike multiple foes. Foes hit with Dissect have a chance to be Marked for Death. Set Categories: PBAoE Guillotine Melee Cone (180 degrees), Superior Lethal Damage, Special, Very Slow Recharge Counterpart to Battle Axe's Pendulum, this shares the same radius but without the extra range or knockdown and does slightly less damage. This attack spares none in its arc. Foes hit with Guillotine have a chance to be Marked for Death. If a target that is Marked for Death is hit by Guillotine, the Marked for Death effect will instantly expire after this attack. Set Categories: PBAoE Notes: When a target that is Marked is hit by a Reaper Scythe attack, their resistance to mez is reduced. This attack will apply that effect before Marked for Death is made to expire. Pull Close Range (40ft), Single Target, Extreme Lethal Damage, Foe Teleport, Very Slow Recharge Counterpart to Battle Axe's Cleave, this attack can reach at a longer range but only hits one foe. Yank a victim closer and pull your blade through them. Foes hit by Pull have a chance to be Marked for Death. Set Categories: Ranged, Teleport Notes: Same range as Claws Focus, this has the added effect of pulling a target to you (teleportation). This is the set's strongest attack, same as Battle Axe's Cleave. Reap Click: Self +DMG, +ToHit, Special +Absorb (8% Max HP), Long Recharge Counterpart to Build Up, Reap has the same damage and ToHit buff with the same duration but gets stacking +Absorb for every hit on a foe that is Marked for Death. When striking a foe that is Marked for Death, you can feed off their fear and inevitable demise, lessening their resolve to fight back. Set Categories: ToHit Buff, Heal/Absorb Notes: Stacks to max of +25% Absorb ontop of any Absorb you currently have. Max duration of 20sec. Rift into the Abyss PBAoE, Foe -ToHit, Fear, caster must be near the ground, Long Recharge Counterpart to Battle Axe's Whirling Axe, this skill does no damage but can put foes in a state of paralyzing fear. Set Categories: ToHit Debuff, Accurate ToHit Debuff, Fear Notes: For animations, I'd like two versions: one where you stab the ground, opening up a chasm underneath you as well as a "slash open the air" animation revealing a portal into someplace else for a short time. Either can work with current Whirling Axe. Throat Slash Melee, Single Target, Moderate Lethal Damage, Fast Recharge Counterpart to Beheader, the damage and effects match just without Battle Axe's extra range. Attempt to remove your opponent's head with a slash at the neck. Foes hit with Throat Slash have a chance to be Marked for Death and knocked down. Set Categories: Melee, Knockback Marked for Death Target Self: Special, 6sec Duration The chance of placing this power on a target is low (around 5%). The chance of placing this power on a terrorized target is moderate (20%). The chance of placing this power on a sleeping target is very high (75%). Foes Marked for Death will have their resistance to fear, sleep, hold, immobilize and disorient reduced by 12% for 25sec every time they are struck with a Reaper Scythe attack. When a minion or below is defeated while Marked for Death, they will cast Marked for Death on another minion within 20ft and has a low chance of casting it again on a Lt or above target. When a minion's Marked for Death expires, it casts a short range AoE mag2 fear and will remain immune to Marked for Death for 6 seconds When a Lt's or above Marked for Death expires, it will apply a Moderate to High amount of Negative Energy damage to itself and their protection to Fear, Sleep, Hold, Immobilize and Disorient is reduced by 1 for 18sec. You can reapply Marked for Death immediately after it expires. Just some thoughts, this set is supposed to shine on a Tanker moreso than a Brute or Scrapper. The damage from Marked for Death would have a base standard depending on the target, not the caster and most of its attacks are slow and powerful with a secondary effect meant for permanently shutting down targets once they are mezzed. Also, thanks to malonkey1 as I copied your post format and just plugged in new stuff.

Personally, I feel nice pulling off a Lightning Rod + Hidden Assassin's Strike. It's a nice bit of AoE alpha strike and dampening a group's retaliation with - ToHit and fear. It's also working off the quirk that LR is a spawned pet so the use remains hidden. You then clean up with your other AoEs and reg crit AS.

Hmmm, what do you use to make those icons?

If I'd added a 6th option this would have been it, but I wanted to avoid an excess of options. My objection is along this line, but more nuanced. I don't play reside because I don't want to be just a legbreaker. Look at the character progression -- you start out as a legbreaker for small-time thugs, then advance to being a legbreaker for bigger-time thugs, then for small-time villains, then for bigger villains, until you graduate to being a legbreaker for Arachnos. And then you have the incarnate content, for which it feels as if you need a higher degree of altruism than a truly villainous individual would have. I never feel as if the character is stepping out on their own to become an actor on the stage of the Rogue Isles. Dissociative syndrome? I think the reason people often feel like they are just mooks all the time is because they believe for their villains to feel truly villainous, they must be almighty, top dog, Joker-Lex Chessmaster plotting and so anything that doesn't accomplish this for them then write it off as side-work or a stepping stone to finally getting to the top. These type of villains cannot have friends, must have alien emotions that cannot be comprehended, and likely become one dimensional. How many players write their villains to run away when they're scared or hurt? Smile and act smug when complimented? Get angry when they don't comprehend? Feel sorrow when betrayed or foiled? When you set out to make an entity that you cannot relate to, there's going to be difficulty relating a story, plot or motive. You're not just breaking legs, you need what that guy has and broken legs is the easiest means of getting it. It's funny, many Heroes have harsh and tragic backstories and we idealize them because they took the path of most resistance and came out fresh on the other end (morally). A villain can start the exact same just taking the path of least resistance instead...or the most resistance but came out not-so-fresh. Personal preference, I suppose.

I'll +1 this suggestion.

My issue is that players min/max either their build or their teams. I've been on teams that were NOT up to the task of +4/x8 on a mid level (lvl 20-33) but still waste their time, struggle, whiff and crawl their way to mission end rather than just setting the difficulty to a normal level (seriously, **** you team leaders who have zero defense debuffs or ToHit buffs in the team expecting lvl 18s to hit purples with any kind of consistency lol). There's also the expectation of requiring normal set-ups or just giving up/swapping to an overpowered character to get a team to work. It marginalizes non-standard set-ups thus, a Controlly Blaster is less valuable. I have no issue having a controlly blaster not having as much value as a bursty blaster, but that isn't really a problem with the sets. If you want Ice Secondary to shine, make a team without dedicated control and a non-standard tank. Suddenly, Ice secondary can be a great boon. "It's still garbage. A dead mob can't do damage" to which I say, have fun with all your characters sharing literally the same 3 sets of powersets lol

I kind of assumed that your character was sort of flying by the seat of their pants with that sort of thing. "I dunno much about alchemy, but I know the 'chem' part, and I'm pretty sure I can Google the rest" was how I rationalized my science heroes dealing with "magical" mission objectives. Seems the world of CoH has at least a baseline level of magical and super-tech knowledge as widely available knowledge with a bit of digging. Exactly! This is what I was trying to get at with earlier posts. Thinking about it, in our world, magic is mysterious and uncertain. In Coh, there are literal magic rituals in the parks. There would have to be videos online or even tutorials of basic magic stuff. I remember in the old forums in a forum RP thread about teens going to a school to teach them about being super heroes, they had a class that taught basic magic. Granted, just like art, if you don't have a talent for it, you'd have to put more effort to learn or just keep it as background knowledge if you're not interested. It's the same with science or tech classes. So it's not a question of can your character do something or not, it's if they are willing to try.

But you said that I was the one doing the blocking. Are you even keeping track of what you're saying? My guess is you didn't try rereading the sentence then. I even tried to clarify for you so you wouldn't have to go "self-absorbed", "self-aggrandizing" and "narcissistic" quote mine. Here, I'll clarify for you again. "Or maybe people are trying to have a reasonable (if perhaps slightly heated) back and forth about a controversial topic and some individual with unreasonable talking points buts in and accuses others of being unreasonable to the point they are blocked." I can understand how you could confuse the wording because defaulting to pronouns can confuse which is the subject. You read it as "people having a reasonable discussion then [subject] butts in and the people are blocked". I tried clarifying it to be "[subjects] are having a reasonable discussion then nondescript person butts in until nondescript person is blocked". No. That's just not what the post says. He suggested an alternative. Which you dismissed with the same argument. He used your rationality against you and you just repeated the rationality rather than approach it differently so you wouldn't take a hypocritical stance. My response to that is "yes, do that, the story arcs idea is unimplementably difficult and thus not worth serious consideration." Like was said by others, that's just your opinion (not backed by any sort of evidence or logic reasoning) but it's noted. Speaking specifically of that idea (of some kind of story driven aspect to origins), I don't feel it is unimplementable. If you're so confident in your experience with code, you should frankly feel embarrassed to say such an absolute, especially considering the vagueness of the suggestion. For all that has been discussed, to make some kind of origin specific story dialog, you could emulate that with simple dialog trees which are wholly possible and currently utilized in the game. And before you rebut with "Then do it! The code is there!", I'll repeat how juvenile such a response like that is. I don't have to prove you can emulate origin story with dialog trees because the proof is in the concept. It's like saying "I can make a CoH Youtube channel to promote the game." There's nothing there to prove, because it's in the context of the statement. Now if you said to prove that it's a worthwhile endeavor, that is something that I can't prove without evidence or data.

Are you offering to code in the proposed origin-centered story arcs yourself? The code is out there. You could've gotten started days ago. You really must think people don't see through your BS, as if someone would fall for you goading them into pursuing an idea they didn't come up with or even agree to. We already know, no matter how much effort is put into suggesting something, it wouldn't be enough and you'd just practice picking nits and get your exercise shifting goal posts. You're not clever enough to trick someone into wasting their time to entertain you. Which is exactly why I've taken up the simple past-time of making your arguments sound as foolish as they truly are. No one seems to have been blocked from discussing any of the other possibilities that have since come up. For that matter, only one person bothered addressing the actual concern that I raised. Not blocking from discussing. Blocking YOU. The person. And that's not addressing your concern. He was mainly pushing your own argument back to you. You rebutted with basically a "no, YOU". You still haven't actually responded to the reasonable notion of "Hold up, we don't want to start putting in effort to only have it wasted. Let's discuss some other ideas." except with a "No you don't! DO SOME WORK". Am I divining your posts right?

Digging a canal from California to Virginia would require people to have a willingness to act. Most people are not digging a canal from California to Virginia. Do you think they're lazy? I'll help your analogy: If people are discussing possible avenues of adding to a small lakeside scene such as adding a deck to a lakeside cabin or offering boat rides to tourists then you march in, claiming we're trying to make the lake bigger so we should dig a canal, not just from another lake to ours but from California to Virginia (why, I have no damned clue) then accusing people of inaction... THEN your analogy is complementary to this point. Also take notice how one can create an irrelevant analogy and form it in a fashion to make one side seem unreasonable and illogical. I hope you're taking notes. Or maybe people are trying to have a reasonable (if perhaps slightly heated) back and forth about a controversial topic and some individual with unreasonable talking points buts in and accuses others of being unreasonable to the point they are blocked. You know, I'm doing you a favor. I'm probably the only one left in the thread willing to talk to you. lol help me help you get back into the discussion....or not, I can just keep shooting down your arguments and bump the thread. But back on topic, I think the main reason I posted in the thread is almost the opposite of what the OP wants. I have Technology heroes that I want to feel more Magic oriented. One might say, well why didn't you make them magic origin and the answer is, because they are tech (or science depending on which character I'm talking about). They're both and I'd like some emphasis on that as well.

It is not clear how you could have missed that this is the point. Which obviously implies, lack of willingness to act = your argument. That's basically saying because we're lazy is why you're right. Do you not know what subservient means? Because it sounds a lot like you don't know what subservient means. You're trying very hard to sound aloof and superior. It isn't working. I don't have to sound superior. Your opinion is so garbage you're not even willing to stand by it, rather deflect to what a word should mean or how people can't read your mind and divine the context of your argument. Like I said to your initial point: Get out of here with your entitled opinion. It's garbage lol I've always held the belief that most ideas can be made great, you just have to mold them a bit. Basically, there are no absolutes especially when it comes to the fleetness of emotions.

I've actually been kind of enamored about creating a Jedi/Sith SG I started thinking of different ways to make such concepts with various ATs. I'm trying to keep them in my head though cause I don't want to be making like 20 more alts quite yet, all with variations of swords skinned as lightsabers. I was actually a bit disappointed that Dominator didn't have a Ninja Assault with to go with Electric Control or Mind Control or the most fitting, Gravity Control.

Despite claims to the contrary, everyone has demonstrated through action, not words, that the task is too enormous to be worth the trouble. I'm afraid to inform you, but no actions have been taken. Only words. If by actions, you mean lack of actions, I hope you then understand what that implies. We haven't even came to some kind of consensus on what actions COULD be taken, much less what actions should be taken. What I read from your post was quite a bit of snark. I'm feeling some pushback from your end. You became pretty defensive about what subcontext your words had rather than actively backed your words up. You practically instantly fell back on "don't assume the meaning of my words!!" which is the weakest, most subservient stance you can make (also, read: pointless).

I'd more describe the power tripping RPer to more closely resemble the example I quoted from that RP thread. Power Tripping would be taking advantage of the leniency of the base concepts of the origin system while also disregarding the established rulesets that come with the base premise of the environment you're playing in. To illustrate what I mean: So you're a magic guy who got his powers from some kind of magic circumstance outside of his control. Gotcha. And he has no knowledge of magic thus when confronted with a situation of casting some kind of spell, he can't do it off the cuff. Reasonable. And he also can't be arsed to try to unravel any intricacies of magic despite the source of his power hinging on it as a source. Hold on, does he not want to improve his powers then? And he'll never need to because his magic will just grow depending on just getting stronger. Wait, but it's kind of ingrained in magic within the background of CoH that knowledge is power. At that point, you're starting to power trip as the setting doesn't require the magic guy to be a skilled spell caster with memorized spells but if his power comes from magic, why would he not want to learn how his powers work so at the very least he doesn't screw something up. But most of all, if he has any aspirations to get stronger, save lives, destroy heroes, get money, etc, why *wouldn't* he want to figure out a simple ritual spell if the outcome can be a better understanding of his own power as well as an outcome that he desires? At that point, it's not a matter of the game powertripping (not even sure how that would happen) into making your character do stuff out of character but rather the player needing to explain why he can't do something that most in his shoes would. I am not a big role player, but I'm pretty sure it's not okay to tell someone what their own character's motivation is. EXACTLY! Now the character has to explain those circumstances. I think you're confusing the player explaining how his character does this or that with the game railroading the player into making certain decisions. Doing the ritual in your example isn't a decision, it's an action. Deciding not to do the ritual and figuring another way is a decision. If the decision is made to use the ritual, it's then the player's prerogative to explain how that occurs. If this were a PnP RPG, you'd then have to make some sort of competency roll but for this example, we usually assume a certain outcome. And this isn't something new or unique to this suggestion. And who did that? The answer is, both of us. How can you make that argument without sounding hypocritical? You had to make up a specific suggestion with specific flaws and then create a specific character concept that doesn't fall under the flawed umbrella idea you concocted. The difference between our perspectives though, is from mine, such a character concept you concocted could just NOT do that specific mission lol Sure, you could just not do it. But the whole point was to write an arc for specific character types. If you wrote an arc that excludes the vast majority of characters, and then large portions of the target audience are just not running it even though you specifically wrote it for them, what was the point? If we're being real here, if someone wants to do an arc, they just do it. You even said yourself you aren't a roleplayer. Would you exclude yourself from playing a new arc on principle of the story not aligning with a certain concept? Personally, I probably would but then I'd probably make a character who DOES fit such a type (more a matter of rolling the character rather than creating tho). The discussion has gotten out of bounds now as you're talking incentive before the concept has been fully realized.

Digging a canal from California to Virginia would probably require a lot of work and energy. Most people are not digging a canal from California to Virginia. Do you think they're lazy? If I said "Look at all these people suggesting a canal and not putting in the time and effort digging that canal from Cali to Virginia. Isn't that curious.", it implies, yes I'm calling those people lazy. If that wasn't what you were implying, then what were you implying?

Interesting. Granted, your slotting is just...I probably shouldn't say :-X But the concept is neat. The difference between a Sentinal and a Blaster though, is the Sent is full range while the Blaster can have a lightsaber. The only thing I'd change is don't try to make it a Tank. Just make it survivable and maybe some decent controls. Another idea I thought of is, what about Sonic/Ninja/Force with animations emanating from the hands? It's got a force push and a mind trick sleep. Just a thought.

Quote the post in which I accused anyone of being lazy. post: https://forums.homecomingservers.com/index.php/topic,5427.msg43849.html#msg43849 You will notice the word "lazy" does not actually appear in that post or that sentence. That this is an accusation of anything is your assumption, and it doesn't even particularly make sense. Definition - Lazy: adjective 1. unwilling to work or use energy. You literally said people advocating the idea are not willing to " invest the time and effort". That sounds like work and energy. If you didn't want to call people lazy, then why accuse them of not being willing to put in time and effort? Like I said, get out of here with your BS entitled arguments. Some might feel it's a waste of effort engaging you but I enjoy taking people's arguments, crushing them into a ball, slam dunking them then Round House kicking said arguments right back in your face. If you're going to argue someone's too lazy to make the kind of suggestions you want, then do it yourself OR keep your passive aggressive quips to yourself lest you get them sent back at you.

I'd more describe the power tripping RPer to more closely resemble the example I quoted from that RP thread. Power Tripping would be taking advantage of the leniency of the base concepts of the origin system while also disregarding the established rulesets that come with the base premise of the environment you're playing in. To illustrate what I mean: So you're a magic guy who got his powers from some kind of magic circumstance outside of his control. Gotcha. And he has no knowledge of magic thus when confronted with a situation of casting some kind of spell, he can't do it off the cuff. Reasonable. And he also can't be arsed to try to unravel any intricacies of magic despite the source of his power hinging on it as a source. Hold on, does he not want to improve his powers then? And he'll never need to because his magic will just grow depending on just getting stronger. Wait, but it's kind of ingrained in magic within the background of CoH that knowledge is power. At that point, you're starting to power trip as the setting doesn't require the magic guy to be a skilled spell caster with memorized spells but if his power comes from magic, why would he not want to learn how his powers work so at the very least he doesn't screw something up. But most of all, if he has any aspirations to get stronger, save lives, destroy heroes, get money, etc, why *wouldn't* he want to figure out a simple ritual spell if the outcome can be a better understanding of his own power as well as an outcome that he desires? At that point, it's not a matter of the game powertripping (not even sure how that would happen) into making your character do stuff out of character but rather the player needing to explain why he can't do something that most in his shoes would. And who did that? The answer is, both of us. How can you make that argument without sounding hypocritical? You had to make up a specific suggestion with specific flaws and then create a specific character concept that doesn't fall under the flawed umbrella idea you concocted. The difference between our perspectives though, is from mine, such a character concept you concocted could just NOT do that specific mission lol If I were you, I'd question if you're arguing for the broadest appeal rather than just assume you've got what it takes to speak for said broadest appeal.

Don't forget the 3-point slide customization for Super Speed.

I hear these arguments a lot and while I do loathe how often we fight Arachnos on Villain side, I think the rest is just perpetuated over-exaggeration. So villain side is drab, flat and samey? How about those Hero-side areas? While I can tell the difference between specific parts of the city, you'd be hard pressed to define Skyway, Steel Canyon, IP and Atlas without the specific landmark structures that define them. Other decent zones like Salamanca and Founders' have flavor but end up being empty while soulless areas like PI and Talos have much more traffic. Ultimately, most zones in Paragon are both drab (but BRIGHT ;D), samey AND serve little to no purpose...and then there are those Hazard Zones... This is an argument I've not heard before. Perhaps you're being sarcastic? What makes the ATs are the powersets and the inherent (and how it interacts with the powersets). IIRC, one hero AT's inherent had to be redesigned so many times, I bet some players currently don't know all it does now; another hero inherent is bland milk-toast and wholly passive in use and the other 3 have had to be redubbed to either not be broken or to be noticeable at all. With that knowledge, I'd argue the hero ATs are the MOST flawed and lack even MORE depth than the Villain ATs who have had their inherents rebalanced some but usually in the same ballpark of what it's suppose to have been (see shifting damage from Domination, crits outside of Hide). In fact, I'd go so far as to assume the reason the Hero ATs had to be changed is because the Villain ATs' designs were so good, they outclassed the old heroes in both interactibility and concept. You point to lack of innovation yet point to Preatoria. So if villain side innovated in the manner of Praetoria, it would somehow make it better? Maybe I'm just easy to please but the stories in Prea are more compelling than Heroside.

Quote the post in which I accused anyone of being lazy. post: https://forums.homecomingservers.com/index.php/topic,5427.msg43849.html#msg43849

Because the current content doesn't look at what your origin is and try to make a connection with your character. How is that so hard to understand? Then it's not an argument against the suggestion. That is, to clarify, bringing up how content assumes your competencies in a piece of origin content in a game that already assumes your competencies in other content. How is this so hard for you to understand? That is an extremely reasonable character concept. Ever heard of Greatest American Hero? That guy fits this concept to a T. Then see the portion of my rebuttal about holding other concepts hostage for a minority power-tripping roleplay. So because it fits the concept of some character you mention, we always have to build the story for every tech character to assume they are incompetent and thus an outside source is always required to progress the story. This is actually one argument made against villain content, that the play character has less agency and relies on others to make plans for them. I hope you can see how pandering to the lowest common denominator can have its flaws. If you choose to take the stance of the lowest common denominator, then there's really no point in further argument. You can just keep dividing the denominator into more and more fractional portions to eek under any rebuttal to the point of absurdity and forming an argument to illustrate absurdity is going to be purely subjective. At this point, the arguments you're responding to are in direct response to your previous claims. To be clear, you've railroaded the argument AWAY from trying to make origins matter toward how story can be origin based/centered. You should really clear THAT point up (likely by dropping it) before further discussion on HOW origins could be focused on.