Arli

Today, I faced an interesting challenge: A new player had stopped playing for a bit after leveling to the mid-20s. They got to the level they attained through participating in AE content. They wanted a new mission, but had no idea where to look or how to find one. That player was helped, but they were also fortunate enough to be part of a community that was willing to help - and that they were willing to ask for help in the first place. Is it possible to remove AE locations from starting zones to discourage this from happening? At least make sure players know how to move between zones before they join AE content? Nothing against AE content in general, but if players want new contacts and want to experience the game's original lore, they need to learn how to access it accordingly; and they can't do this in AE.

I prefer building more resistances/defenses on a brute as a general practice to make them useful for both teamplay and solo play with this philosophy in mind; if they can't take the hits, then they can't do the damage. It's like trying to take a brute built for fire farming and then throwing it into a bunch of Arachnos at +4 x8 - it won't end well, no matter what the damage output is. But this is my perspective, and how I approach building brutes in general - I prefer them for versatility - and sometimes they are used to "tank" content. I was primarily a villain player prior to the ability to swap alignments, so I did the best with what I had - and I still like brutes, but tankers are objectively better at tanking, and scrappers are objectively better at damage, so it's been awkward trying to build brutes effectively so they could still fulfill both roles without having separate builds (and I have seen instances where teams prefer scrappers over brutes because they feel brutes don't do enough damage in general). In response to the comments I've seen since, though - (and of course, since it was suggested I shouldn't be taken seriously): I understand there are a lot of people who say procs are fine - that they shouldn't be changed in how they behave. I was on legacy servers - was part of speed teams, and we relied on procs even then - and now it feels objectively worse. Procs appear to make some aspects of the game feel too easy. Endurance management? Toss in a couple of procs that provide + endurance in static powers. Want more oomph in attacks that feel underwhelming? Slot some chance for x damage procs in. You can slot more than one in, anyway. Want your build up to have more power? Slot a Gaussian's in (conversely, some also drop it into Tactics). I know players that have stopped playing the game simply because they've steamrolled content and no longer view the game as challenging enough (even incarnate trials). Which is fair enough. But this perspective was helped along by the prevalence of procs (to a degree), and I'd like to see that changed.

So... I have a rad/ice tanker that can clear +2 x8 groups in under ten seconds (without using ground zero or my judgment). This is because of procs. This is also why I feel it's pointless to use a brute for anything other than farming - with procs, tankers can easily out-perform brutes in regards to survivability and damage output. Meanwhile, brutes have to compensate for lesser resistances/defenses and may not be able to proc out builds as easily as a tanker. I'd love to see procs diminish in effectiveness. It almost feels like I'm not building effectively if I don't use or rely on certain procs at all. Please tweak the PPM formula. Also. What @th0ughtGun said is not incorrect. They do make a valid point. Building soft capped on a character will not always diminish team performance; suggesting that it does is a fallacy, as it is not true in every circumstance. Some teams value team members that have soft capped defenses if going for specific objectives that might warrant such a build. Some speed teams will value this in specific instances (think ITFs when hunting crystals and you have poor RNG with the map, and it splits - et cetera). Just because a player may build a soft capped build for their character doesn't mean their team buffs will be missing or less effective. I've seen players straight up skip team buffs (and they didn't have soft capped builds). Relying on teammates to bring necessary buffs is only reliable when you have teams built specifically for that. Otherwise, it's a game of chance if you ever do team compositions through looking for group - unless you specify specific builds and/or ATs.

Brutes have fury, which can provide up to a 170% damage bonus. Scrappers can crit - and hit up to 2x base damage - this is in addition to the base damage increase they have over brutes (scrappers have roughly a 1.5x base damage advantage over brutes). In exchange, brutes have greater survivability - they were the "tankers" of redside prior to gaining the ability to switch sides, so it makes sense that they have the resistance caps that they do. While that also mirrors the resistance caps of a tanker, the base numbers for mitigation stats are inherently higher for tankers over brutes - which means brutes are often struggling to fill resistance gaps over tankers, and still have a reduced aggro cap. As it is, there's already a strong resistance against further nerfing brutes; and many players have stated vehemently that brutes are currently underpowered as is, when compared to tankers (if you're looking to fulfil a tanking role in the game, it's almost always a better idea to go with a tanker over a brute, because of mitigation AND because tankers have a higher aggro cap). Most people who chose to create a scrapper create them for the damage output with at least some survivability. Taunt auras are built into some sets, but each secondary has benefits and drawbacks (I myself avoid armor sets that use activated mez protection over toggle, for example). It should stay as is, in my opinion. Taunt auras do not need to be proliferated, but do not also need to be taken away from the sets that already have them.

I remember using the term "elite" a lot in the 90s (or well, l33t). I'm in my late 30s, so I might not remember it as well as I did - but being called an "elitist" was always more insulting than being called "elite", and there are profound differences between the two - which is why you likely got the reactions you did to it. I do want to go on the record by stating that a Dr. Kahn TF can be completed without "elite" players, although it can be hit or miss sometimes - but victory is not always assured in every instance. I've been part of failed LRSFs, LGTFs, and BSFs - likely also a few Kahns tossed in there, as well.

I'm confused about this statement, but only because elitism is supposed to convey that a group of people look down on others. How is it elitist if someone wants to build a team a certain way? It's not an attack against specific players (and should not be taken as such); it's just a preference for powersets that they feel would benefit their team. If people want to build certain compositions for their teams, why is it an issue? No one is obligated to join those teams, if they don't want to. It's not realistic to expect everyone to play the same ways. Some people like content that's simpler - some like more of a challenge. Why vilify people for that, or call them elitist?

As far as it happening more on Excelsior, I suppose that depends on your frequency of play there - you haven't stated which server you play on most, so I made an assumption that you likely played Excelsior more, simply because of the higher population and greater chance of finding teams - thus your negative experiences would be more frequent. I never said you were the problem; I haven't called out anyone. I just wanted to acknowledge your concerns and highlight why I didn't agree with you. I understand that you're contributing to the conversation; but my perspective is that it was nitpicking (you obviously do not have to agree; it is just an opinion). When HC launched, I played on Excelsior - but only because I knew people who played there already (I played on the original CoH servers, and was already part of a community that was there - that community chose to make Excelsior their base). Beyond that, I hold no attachment to Excelsior; I play where friends are, and Excelsior hasn't been the only server I've played on. Essentially: I don't see enough evidence to believe what you claim is true, based on my own experiences. I'm a data-oriented person; you provide me with data, I'm more inclined to believe you.

In my opinion, this list seems a bit like nitpicking. Things like this likely happen on all servers, and not just Excelsior. The interactions I've had on Excelsior have been overwhelmingly positive - the negative experiences I have are far and few in-between. So my response: 1. This doesn't actually happen all that frequently on Excelsior. 2. This largely depends on the team/environment; I myself only intermittently say congratulations, but only because after a certain point - it becomes redundant and meaningless. I now feel apathetic about being congratulated myself, and feel obligated to say thank you every time or I feel like I come off as a jerk. 3. If the leader communicates, this doesn't actually happen frequently at all. If there are clear expectations from the start, Leeroy actually isn't done. I myself will listen to the team leader if there are specific parameters they want the team to follow. 4. Occasionally, splitting up can be effective. Again, this is team and leader specific. If a team is set up but the leader never communicates, then folks will play the way they feel most comfortable with. Assuming they should behave one way or another doesn't work. 5. Again, team/content specific. 6. If I join a Synapse I want that Synapse to be at 20+. Just makes it easier that way than if the leader is, say, 17, but levels on a mission and suddenly the enemies are worth less experience/inf. But that's my opinion - and how I prefer it. I can still join a team that isn't 20+ for that Synapse, but my playing experience may not be as positive. I feel like you've been unlucky enough to have more negative experiences on Excelsior than positive. Everyone has different perspectives and expectations. If you want to play things a certain way, it's often best to lead those teams yourself.

It's a slippery slope to change content to 40+ when 45+ has already been established. In all honesty, LGTF being 45+ makes more sense - thematically and conceptually. In terms of coordination/difficulty, I'd consider it right up there with MLTF and LRSF. I know players are capable of completing it at lower levels, but 45+ guarantees a better check and makes it less likely that folks will gatekeep teams to include 45+ only if they're bringing pugs along (which is what I'd do). If you lower it to 40+, I can guarantee you'll be inundated with requests to lower it to 35, then 30, then 25, and so on - which would go against the game's lore and conflict with major storylines. I loved it when I noticed the change to 45+. I was disappointed when I saw this comment, though. 😞

If you're going to try to advocate for a "red" server, then what I want to know is... Which server do you consider the "blue" server? What about the "yellow" server? There's a host of players all over the place. I switch sides constantly and I don't really care to be on a "red" server if I'm playing villains - only thing that matters is that I'm where the folks I enjoy playing with are.

You can still start an instanced version of MSRs with just one person. App usually starts his instanced MSRs by first creating an instance - joining it - and then inviting others to join him.

I'd argue that the person running a zone version of the MSR is more likely to hit player limitations than the one running an instanced version of the same. There's still a player cap for the zone - 50. A player running a zoned version has to deal with other players trying to create/form tinpexes/LGTF teams, not to mention any teams that may feel like running the Vanguard missions. From a player's perspective, having to swap instances just because not all of us could fit in the zone JUST to start a tinpex is especially aggravating - and I do hold that against MSR leaders who choose to lead within a zone. You can still only have a league up to 48 members. A player cap doesn't matter in this instance, because technically the zone and instanced versions still have the same theoretical player caps, it's just not as consistent for the zone version because of outliers that may be interested in doing other content. I have experienced (previously) issues where I had been asked to leave the zone if I wasn't joining the MSR. I've also dealt with half of my team being in one instance while I was in the other (this disrupts my own play because I like buffing teammates in between missions). Additionally, it IS really annoying to have to zone back into my base or use long range teleport JUST to select a different instance for RWZ because an MSR happens to be going on in zone. From my perspective, the instanced version is just better. If you're worried about zone flavor, that could be addressed by making it so the pylons are not targetable and attack players that are within reach. This way, no one's play is negatively impacted if they're interested in hanging out in the zone for anything else.

It could be. Out of curiosity, I did try it again and noticed an issue where my pets were there, but not listed under the pet window (screenshot attached). I also unsummoned them again and was able to see them - but they did refuse to follow me through the holes. Still seems a bit wonky, either way it goes.

I went along with a few friends for an Eden trial this evening - for the WST. My pets worked fine up until entering into the last mission, and were unable to "follow" me so I dismissed them and attempted to re-summon. I was successfully able to use my summoning abilities, but the pets never showed. Upon exiting the mission, the pets were there. If it's relevant, it was with a Thugs/Electrical Affinity Mastermind, level 50 and on Excelsior.

I agree with Faultline - it is not a false equivalency. Your hyperbolic example doesn't necessarily prevent the fact that the /ebfp command could have been used by players to access instances and missions they were not invited to; which was especially profound if an unruly player was kicked from an instance and used that command to return anyway. To make up for the loss of that "always available" macro, the HC team offered an alternative, with the option to buy another base transport power from the P2W vendor. Yes, there are cooldowns associated with it, but when you consider all of the abilities we now have access to from level 1 in regards to traveling to other zones, it is not often that you might find yourself unable to teleport from a zone - not to mention the ability of still being able to use accessible TF/SF/trial contacts as a means for transporting to specific zones (under specific conditions, but that option still does not have a cooldown). Initially, the cooldowns used to be a ton longer. You used to need to have accolades for the zones you wanted access to via LRT. It takes maybe five minutes to unlock the exploration accolade on one character if you choose to complete it for Atlas Park. If you do that for four hours for fifty characters; you're also getting a total of 250 merits out of it as well as access to LRT for all those characters. Seems like a more productive option over paying for access, but suggesting initial access to LRT (with no zones unlocked unless exploration badges are discovered) is something I'd consider a fair request.