Lockpick

Today there was an announcement for a speed ITF. I joined since it was the WST and I had about 30 minutes, but could max to about 45 minutes. We get into mission 1 and start defeating all including going up the regular path instead of bypassing it. I asked if we were still doing a speed run and one guy said there was some non-50s that wanted XP. I said I understand, but this was advertised as a speed run. The person doing the advertising said we were making good time. Second mission we cleared all including the ambushes. After the mission I was about out of time, so told the team I was dropping and thanks for the team. I wasn't upset, but wasn't happy either as I wanted the merits. I generally think of ITF speed runs as less than 30 minutes, 45 minutes as a mid range run, and 60 to 75 minutes for a defeat all run. I was thinking I had been the victim of a bait and switch, but then I started thinking that there is really no consensus as to what constitutes these times; it's just in my mind. All that being said, I'm curious what others think about how long a speed ITF should take. Any thoughts?

/jranger

It would be nice to have a widget that shows a countdown for rewards or activities. Example: 20 hours for ITF or Ephram Shah 10 threads rewards. The timer will let you know the last time you did an activity, so you don't do it again early and not get credit.

None of that is 50+ content. MLTF: 45 - 50 ITF: 35 - 50 LGTF: 45 - 50 (think it is 35 on HC) Peregrine: 41 - 50 RWZ: 35 - 50 First Ward: 20 - 30 Night Ward: 30 - 35

From my perspective, 90%* of the game is 1 to 50 content. The only 50+ content I am aware of is DA, TinPex, and the iTrials. Is there other 50+ content I am forgetting? The challenge I see is that people are taking 50+ min/max builds and then are complaining there is no challenge in the 1 to 50 content. My take is we should be focused on creating that 50+ content as players. The HC team is to small to make the amount of content that will be needed to satisfy the players, so we need to take ownership ourselves. * All percentages pulled from my 4th point of contact. We have the ability to create a ton of new content via AE to the point where it will never be exhausted. We just need the HC team to focus on some minor updates, reward rationalization, and a stronger focus on community (challenges, rewards for creating content, etc.).

I had 2 accounts on Live I was paying for and would have kept paying. I think NCSOFT really missed the opportunity. Frankly, I think they are still missing an opportunity. They could easily take the game today, make some updates, clean it up, and re-launch.

Exactly. I create one window with 10 stats, but want to monitor more stats. I have an extra wide monitor, so I could easily add 2 or 3 windows.

It was unavailable, but I got The Power Creeper, a version of the Creeper, but with more, um, power...

I would like to be able to add multiple windows of Combat Attributes. For example, I would like to create one window for Defense attributes, one for Resist attributes, etc. and be able to place them in different areas of my monitor.

Thanks for the explanation and the link. I had never heard the term "core" gamer before, so it is interesting the term came out in 2000 or earlier. My experience with gaming started in 2004 when CoH launched. I was addicted. Couldn't wait to get home and play. I was probably playing from 6 PM to midnight every day and probably 20 hours per day on weekends. Now I treat it more like a hobby as the article indicated. I would much rather play CoH than watch TV. I probably play a couple of hours each night as I usually logon with one character to do the 7PM Hami raid and then run an Ephram Shah mission for threads. I then do the same thing with another character for the 10 PM raid.

I didn't say anything about pay, I mentioned terminology. It seems to me like you just don't agree with the definition of power gamer. If you don't like the definition of power gamer on Wikipedia, please feel free to edit it. I'm not sure why you are arguing with me about a definition on Wikipedia or terms like "power gamer" and "casual player" that have generally been used to describe players in MMOs for years.

In this game, especially on Everlasting, there are players that are more focused on story and role play as opposed to maximizing their results. The definition of power gaming is what it is. I didn't make it up. It is just terminology. I usually hear the terms casual or power gamer for MMOs. I'm not sure why correlating to dancing or football helps make your point. Someone playing football to progress has different terminology that they use and a player might go from high school player, to elite recruit, to college player, pro, etc. I don't get the negative connotation myself since I pretty much agree with the definition. I consider myself a power gamer because I do, in general, what the definition states a power gamer does. I generally try to maximize my character's potential and I tend to focus on content that allows me to progress efficiently enough to suit my needs.

I thought they would be more valuable on tanks for sure. My character is a StJ/SD with soft-cap M/R/AoE and S/L resistance above 60%. I have been playing with the 2 regeneration IOs and I feel as though I can tell the difference, but not sure if it more valuable than just sticking 2 Health IOs +5 in True Grit which (according to Mids) will increase my Health from 1755 to 1870. I actually find my endurance to still be challenging in long fights despite 4 slotting stamina and getting Superior Conditioning and Physical Perfection with +End IOs, so maybe I should look at endurance slotting with these 3 slots. Decisions, decisions... Here is the build:

I think the term power gamer is not defined well or people have different definitions of it. I tried to define it earlier based on my thoughts, but the definition from Wikipedia is below where player focus on maximizing potential. In that context, there are probably a lot of power gamers here. I think there are negative connotations around power gaming, so people may not be comfortable being called a power gamer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powergaming Powergaming in roleplaying games can take several forms. One form is the deliberate creation of optimal player characters (PCs), with the aim of maximising the power the player wields in the game world. This is known as min-maxing, due to the practice of maximising desirable or "powerful" traits while minimising underpowered or unuseful traits.

This seems to align with my experience as well. I have a bunch of characters and by 40 I will usually have a full IO set build. At 50, I will pull out set IOs that are not part of my final build as I buy the sets for my end build. Between 22 and 40 I will have a mix of basic IOs and set IOs depending on what I can afford or what drops. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the character with end game min/max builds are usually going to have set IO bonuses and have several vet levels. They will have several incarnate powers. They will be powerful. They are supposed to be powerful. The end game content needs to align to these end game builds. We don't need to change the 1 to 50 experience to make it harder when the concern is high end content for end game builds. I am also curious about the amount of time played at 50 compared to 1 to 50. I guess I can understand a bit better the issue some are having if they are focusing on one character at 50 and finding the current content easy. I focus on leveling for the majority of my play time, so for me the amount of time I am godlike is more limited. Again, I would suggest that the answer is to create harder content for the end game builds as opposed to balancing the 1 to 50 game to make it harder. I would also suggest that people that think the game is easy should try to create AE content they find challenging as Lines did. If 5 to 10 people created the high end AE content, we might be able to convince the dev team to add appropriate rewards for that content and could have a rotation of high end AE content added to the WST. That would be a win for everyone.

I do this as well. If I look at Info at a Hami raid or iTrial I will see players with a lot of IO set info (and a ton of vet levels), but if I am leveling up (which is the majority of the game) I see few characters with IOs. I start slotting my IO sets as soon as I can, but I think I am rare compared to most of the community. We on the forums probably do it, but we are the power gamers.

Okay, what is your definition of a power gamer? And how would you classify yourself? I generally see gamers labeled as casuals or power gamers. If you are meeting the definition I provided I don't think you qualify as a casual. Not sure if there other classifications I am not thinking about. Here is a definition from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powergaming

I'm not sure I get your point. If you are indicating I am a power gamer, I agree. I indicated earlier that I am a power gamer, but even if I am a power gamer there are others that might be considered super power gamers like @Werner, @nihilii; @Bill Z Bubba that can take that next level step to do insane challenges. From my perspective, if the game was made harder I would adapt because I play a lot, I make builds, I read the forums, etc. My concern is more for what I would consider the average gamer that really like the non-trinity casual nature of this game. I don't know that percentage of players, but I expect it is much larger than the power gamer percentage. A power gamer in my mind (just so we have a starting point): Plays a lot (this is different for everyone; I play a lot, much more than I should) Has multiple 50s Min/max builds Plays multiple aspects of the game to earn inf IO sets Incarnates Forum regular Veteran player who understands the ins and outs of the game well enough to have a reasonable developed opinion on the topic at hand

I really respect your builds and performance discussions, but you are killing me... You do realize a billion inf is not much for a power gamer, but will never be reached by the vast majority of players, right?

Thank you for supporting my points from earlier in the thread. I agree that Tankers are now OP. This is what happens when you have wholesale balance changes. Now we have to have more balance changes so other ATs can get to the level of Tankers. Then we need more balance changes so the new Flavor of the Month under performing set now meets the new performance metrics. It never ends, which leads to my point that we should leave well enough alone and only target clearly under performing or over performing sets. The development time would be much better spent providing value in new sets, new power pools, and solving the player created end game content challenges.

I don't know how much work it would be, but I can speculate on what the outcome would be and that would be players migrating to other options. When you take stuff away from players who believe they earned them through the existing rules to satisfy a minority of other players you get one group of players pissed at another group. It's not worth it IMO. I don't think this change would be as bad as ED and some of the other nerfs from Live, but it would be a significant nerf that few people would likely appreciate.

A few power gamers feel the game is this easy. I doubt if the larger overall population believes this and even if some do believe it is easy I don't believe they would advocate for wholesale changes to make the game harder. They probably like it as it is. This is not true for most players. For this to be true you have to be: A power gamer with enough time to level to 50 Have a strong AT and power set combo with enough damage and survival mechanisms Min/Max builds with IO sets costing north of $300M inf Incarnates My buddy that I mentioned earlier in the thread does not even have one 50 and his highest level build may have a few IOs from sets. He is not doing +4/8 solo. I expect there are many more players like him than there are players like us (power gamers). On another note, we keep talking about incarnates and high level content lack of challenge. I look at my play style and 90% of my gaming in CoH is leveling 1 to 50. I spend a bit of time at 50 to get T4 incarnates, but then I start an alt. Basically, my play time is mostly spent in the base game. Why would we change the entire leveling game experience to solve some lack of challenges that min/max 50s are having? Why not just make new level 50 content that is harder? The guys here that are advocating making the game harder are not explaining it well enough for me to understand why I and others like me who like the game as is should want the entire game harder because a few power gamers want a challenge at end game.

But why not add +5, +6, and +7 notoriety levels, so you get back to +4 when you have a +3 level shift? Might need some changes to the purple patch as well, but likely would be much easier than making a bunch of balance changes. By the way, you do realize that player like you and @nihilii and a few others in this thread are in the top 1% of 1% of players, right? You guys tackle challenges that very few would attempt. I have a number of 50s, semi-min/max builds, T4 incarnates, and I cannot do some of the stuff you guys are accomplishing. If I (as an example) am in the top 10% of power gamers that means you guys are the gods of power gamers, but I expect 90% of the population are not power gamers. Numbers straight from my 4th point of contact, but I think the thought behind it is accurate.

How do you figure that anyone can solo +4/8. I started soloing +4/8 in DA on my Savage / SR stalker and was able to do it okay. I tried on my Psy/EA stalker and kept getting wrecked. I couldn't imagine trying it on my Illusion / Radiation controller. I think my Time / DP defender could probably do it. I think to say anyone can do it is a stretch.

Why would I ask a hypothetical question like "If the game was made harder, would you use the tools available to make the difficulty easier" as opposed to asking about the current state of the game that everyone is playing right now? You are basically asking would I make it easier if the game was made harder and I had the option to make it easier. Yes, I probably would. I like playing a casual friendly game and am not interested in playing a hard mode game. I guess I would flip the question on you. We currently have the option to make the existing game harder through various options like notoriety, non-IO builds, no incarnates, mission / TF settings, creating your own hard mode content via AE, and finding people to team with of a like mind. Are you leveraging the existing mechanics to meet your play style? If not, why not? If so, why are the existing mechanics not meeting your need for harder content? I don't understand your second point at all. In the current version of the game it starts with a base difficulty and people can lower that difficulty or increase it. It is much easier to leave the current game as is than it would be to do a bunch of balance changes that make the game harder and then give us options to make it easier. It seems logical and easier to provide options like "no level shift", "no incarnates", "no Judgement powers", or add +5 or +6 to the notoriety level to make the game harder than to change it current base state. Anyway, just wanted to pop my head in and provide my experience this weekend. I notice that it seems that the few people advocating to make the game harder are continuing this thread, so I will continue to pop in occasionally to represent the other side of the equation. It depends on the change. People have been quite receptive to new power sets, power pool additions, QoL changes, and bug fixes. People seemed fine with the blaster and snipe changes and the Tanker changes (which I think were over tuned). They were positive about the new story arcs that were delivered. Seems like a lot of change has happened that have been received with positivity. I would be ecstatic to see new power pools, more bug fixes, changes to the amount of pools we could take, new power sets, changes to AE and HC support for player made content, etc. It seems unlikely that people that like this game and have played for years are going to be receptive to changes that massively disrupt the current game, but that is just my opinion.