Blackbird71

I'll vote for always on with OAS.

Thanks, but I can't take credit. That was really just compiling the various ideas others had put forward that I thought had merit.

It might be worth some research to find out. Assuming InvaderStych is correct, it does raise an interesting argument. After a preliminary search, the only thing I can find is that travel power suppression was implemented as a result of players' suggestions: https://archive.paragonwiki.com/wiki/List_of_Player_Suggested_Features

So far as increasing set bonuses, that just improves the game for the higher end of players/characters who use IO sets. I'd rather see the whole mez experience improved across the board. No one likes dying to perma-mez chains, at any level/enhancement class.

What I would like to see: Any changes to RoP postponed until the Sorcery Pool, and Origin Pools as a whole, can be evaluated and reworked into something better balanced than their current state. Mez effects changed so that they only suppress, not detoggle, any and all affected powers. Proliferate the PvP effect of temporary immunity to additional mez effects after being affected by a mez to player characters in all parts of the game. I think points 2 and 3 would put the game in a better place for some rebalance of RoP and other powers, while 1 would allow a reduction in the power level of RoP without necessarily making the Sorcery Pool feel even less useful to the handful of people who employ it in their builds, and hopefully would make the Origin Pools more appealing overall (without being overpowered).

Thank you for providing the numbers; this gives us something to work with as a basis for discussion. I think it's very telling that even among AT's who lack the sort of protections provided by RoP in their base powersets, still only 11% of characters take the power. This would seem to indicate that even in the absence of such protections, nearly 90% of these "squishy" ATs either consider the investment for RoP to be too much, or the benefits too little, or at least prioritize the effects of other power picks over RoP (and the Sorcery Pool powers necessary to get it). The HC power devs may consider RoP to be overtuned or overpowered in a vacuum, but at least to me, these numbers indicate that in practical application and context of actual use, it is far from it. If RoP does actually need a nerf/rework, then it should be postponed until the Sorcery Pool as a whole can be rebalanced, or better yet, all of the Origin Pools can be revisited. Until then, all this change will do is ensure that RoP will drop to even lower than that 5% use rate.

As a rule, I don't PvP, in CoH or any other MMO. I despise when games are changed around PvP mechanics, as pursuit of PvP "balance" invariably homogenizes the rest of the game and makes it less interesting and fun. In nearly every MMO I've played in 20 years of online gaming, using PvP as a guide/justification for PvE changes has killed my interest in the game. Having said all of that, this is one aspect of PvP I could definitely support porting over to PvE. There is nothing more frustrating than getting chain mezzed long enough that you can only sit and watch as your character is defeated without the ability to react or do anything at all to prevent it. Gameplay is interaction. Mez removes the possibility for interaction, and therefore removes gameplay. There have been whole essays on this by experienced and celebrated game designers explaining why this sort of mechanic is bad for the game experience. Maybe we can't remove it from CoH now, or modify it into something less egregious, but if we can at least put a stop to the chain mez issues, that would go a long way towards reducing player frustrations and making the mez conundrum more tolerable.

Is it wrong that I'm trying to stare at that image like one of those "Magic Eye" pictures?

I think he means that after the micro sleep, you might not notice your pets were switched from an aggressive to a defensive stance.

And it's been stated that these threads are not for "discussions" or debates among the community, or to try to sway each others' opinion. State your feedback to the HC Devs, and leave it at that. Arguing amongst each other isn't going to help anything, and just clogs up the thread.

I believe the HC team have stated numerous times that these threads are for feedback regarding the Page 2 changes; not for discussing various builds, power options, status mitigation, etc. available on live and not directly affected by Page 2 changes. In that regard, consider that people may be ignoring these posts so as not to derail the thread and make more moderation necessary.

In other words, "No." Frankly, I find this response to be more troubling than any power change I disagree with.

When the HC devs constantly insist that we present numbers and testing in our feedback on game changes, it only stands to reason that we also insist on numbers and testing to justify those changes in the first place. What does it being a volunteer team have to do with requesting a consistency of standards in communication about changes to the game? Are we not also volunteering our time to test their changes and provide feedback? Should that not also receive consideration?

The way this is communicated, it sounds like a lot of the justification for this change came down to opinions. Can you present numbers on how many characters (and of which ATs) used RoP to back up the claim that it was over-performing? Anecdotal experience would suggest that it wasn't such a widely used power, and that would seem to reinforce the idea that RoP was either not overpowered, or that there are even more powerful options that most players chose instead. Of course, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data," and only you can pull the numbers that would back up this argument one way or the other.

The irony of your own posts seems to be lost on you.

OK, now we're actually getting somewhere; being able to jump twice back to back is definitely a useful ability that I am in favor of. Now, is there a reason why the cooldown time of a single power cannot be lowered to facilitate this in a single power? I would think that the 30s cooldown on the Monitor Duty Teleporter would be sufficient for this effect, but the restriction of charges on this power makes frequent use prohibitive. If there is a valid justification for why a single power cannot have a low enough cooldown to meet this use case, then let's look at reducing the need for multiple powers. Three uses in under 10 minutes still means at least three powers are needed; can we make it two instead? Reduce LRTP or one of the other base teleport powers to the five minutes of the Ouro portal; then only one other power would be needed to get three teleports in under 10 minutes. It's not a complete solution, and I know personally it's still going to make for inconvenient situations, and I still object to the idea of needing more than one power (and a submenu) to get the job done, but if there is an actual reason for why it has to be at least two powers, can it be kept to just two?

Misunderstanding on my part. I at first thought Faultline was referring to the popup window that prompts a player to select a base or enter a code.

Not when it's used with a base passcode as part of the command; then there is no screen popup whatsoever. Or if you were referring to the transition loading screen, that's a non-argument and petty in itself. Any form of transit between zones, /ebfp or otherwise, includes a loading screen during which the player cannot interact. That is separate from interactible screen clutter.

Your own words, both previously and in this very post, show this to be incorrect: This is what I'm talking about; in order to get the same frequency of use as before, multiple powers are now needed, as per your own statement. Therefore, my comment is not "misinformation," and continuing to disparage my opinion as such is not appreciated. You've removed the variety we used to have, as those powers used to give us different destinations within each map, and could be used to better navigate depended on desired location. Instead you've homogenized everything to transport players to the base portals. And longer than the system which you allowed to persist for 1.5 years. They are even longer than the Ouro portal. The only justification given for their current length is "they were longer before." The problem with that justification is it raises the question of why they can't be made even shorter? Clearly the ability is there, it is the will that is lacking, and it appears to be for sheer stubbornness that you are hanging on to the 10 minute cooldowns, despite unrestricted travel 1) not having broken the game in the past 1.5 years that it was available, and 2) having become something of a standard among many MMOs in the time since CoH was live as developers discovered that inconveniencing players for inconvenience's sake is a bad idea (unless there's a way to milk it for cash). That is certainly part of it, but there's nothing you can do about that now, you've waited to long. What you can address though is the manner in which this has been "explained," as it has only made the situation worse. We've repeatedly been given answers without a logical explanation or substantial reason for the specifics of the available powers, even when suggestions, reasons and examples are given for different options. That comes off as condescension, and it's insulting to our intelligence. The problem is that, as pointed out numerous times by others, similar travel has become the baseline in many MMOs and it has come to be expected. There is no valid justification for why HC cannot offer similar QoL improvements, particularly when they have been demonstrated to work without destroying the game (exploits aside; all reasonable suggestions here have included that any solution needs to address these). Unless you have data to show some damage that was being done to the health of the game by regular and unrestricted base travel being available? Because so far that has not been presented to us; if it had been, this would be a completely different discussion. If your intent was to allow 3 uses every 10 minutes, then that should have been included in a single power through a reduced cooldown; not requiring multiple powers to achieve. Through this and other comments you've repeatedly acknowledged that 3 transports in 10 minutes is not only common (~45% of cases based on your numbers), but is perfectly reasonable and should be supported. Where we disagree is on whether it should take one or multiple powers to achieve this. So far I have seen no logical justification for why this frequency can't be obtained with a single power. It would be significantly more convenient, and would reduce power clutter (yes, you added the travel power menu; frankly this just moves the clutter around to a new "tray"), and would satisfy practically any of the outstanding legitimate complaints about this change. What exactly would be the harm in a lower cooldown time on even just one of the base teleporter powers (that isn't otherwise restricted in frequency)? That's the primary question that needs to be addressed in all of this; what damage would this really do? If there is significant detriment, then explain that. But if there is not, then maybe it's time to be a little more flexible in your thinking.

Except that those are not explanations. They are decisions for which the only explanations given amount to "because we said so," despite the many reasoned, logical arguments for why the specifics of the decisions can and should be changed. This is why you are facing such backlash and dissatisfaction over the change. Talk to us like intelligent adults; give us a reasoned justification for why things have to be the way they are, for why there need to be so many different powers to achieve the same thing, why the cool downs need to be so long, why the costs need to be so high, etc. And if you can't offer such justifications, then consider that maybe the decision is wrong and should be changed.

Have I been overly vocal about this? Absolutely; I won't deny that. But to say it's only "2 people" ignores the many others who have expressed similar opinions both in this and the original feedback thread, and that's an unfair characterization of the discussion.

I reject the argument "because reasons;" that's the sort of argument you give a two-year old. What reasons? Why does it have to be this way? This is what has been hotly debated in all of the feedback, and numerous examples have been given of other games and even instances within CoH where these obstacles to fast and even instant travel were removed as significant QoL improvements. So far, the reasons given have all appeared to be completely arbitrary, and as such I have yet to see a defensible justification for why it has to be the way it is, and why it cannot be made simpler and more direct.

The impact the two have on gameplay are wildly disparate, and no, comparing them is not appropriate. There is no justification that can be given for adding a player equivalent to /completemission to the game (except as it already exists as a once per three day option to get around bugged missions). An argument and justification absolutely can be made for the QoL improvements of adding an ability with similar (not identical) functionality to /ebfp. Using the lack of availability of /completemission to the playerbase at large as a justification for not restoring an exploit-free version of the functionality that was available with /ebfp shows a lack of good faith in this discussion. In fact the devs have already agreed that adding back such functionality is reasonable, as evidenced by these travel updates. Where we disagree is where to set the level of difficulty/obstacle to acquiring and using these powers, not their existence or purpose.

Drawing an equivalency between the two commands is disingenuous to the discussion. This same point has been discussed several times before, and the two are not comparable.

Which is the whole problem I've been complaining about; the complexity of needing 3-4 powers to regain the functionality we had previously. It's quite frankly ridiculous.