Blackbird71

I hate using AE. Farms are boring, and the quality of non-farm content is too much of a mixed bag. I prefer running stuff out in the world. I've done Tina's stuff several times before, and it's probably my least favorite arc. The portal missions are just not my cup of tea. So many of them are "go to this outdoor map and find three glowies to click" that end up being time-consuming busywork that result in hardly any XP, so you don't feel like you're progressing and it becomes a slog. Not to mention the number of Crey and Malta you have to mess with in the later part of her arc. Plus thematically, I don't really care for playing a hero who is spending their time traveling to other worlds. In short, Tina's arc is exactly why I often end up doing stuff like CoT/Council in the 40s.

What about under-50/unfinished-build/non-incarnate solos who want a mindless bash-fest? That's the category I typically fall into by the time I hit 40 on a character.

Which frankly probably contributes to a lot of the frustration and arguments that go around during open beta, and the general feeling that staff doesn't communicate well. Open beta is seen by a larger portion of the player base, and so giving this negative impression of a lack of communication (and the resulting miscommunication) at that time has a broader negative impact.

I'm going to get that put on a billboard in Atlas. 😉

The change from a repeatable reward to a one-time badge has likely moved this feature from "hotly controversial" to "all-around meh." On top of that, the AT categorization still doesn't fit the character creation descriptions or practical function of several ATs. There's really no purpose to release a mediocre feature that gives incorrect/incomplete information. At this point, it's probably best to just scrap the whole idea.

"It goes to 11." Seriously. Every other volume control system on a computer goes from 0-100%. Calling the top end 150% just gives the impression that the setting will go above system limits. I understand shifting the slider to a curve, and I think that part is a great improvement. But changing the label on the upper limit is Spinal Tap levels of silly. Might want to get on the same page there. 😉 Dueling staff in consecutive posts causes confusion.

Neither does pigeonholing ATs that serve multiple roles into single-role categories, especially some that are poor fits compared to the AT's actual function.

Open a thesaurus. Call it a "versatility" bonus, a "variety" bonus, a "complimentary" bonus, whatever. I think the immediate "thumbs down" reactions on my other post emphasizes just how controversial and divisive the suggested terms are.

There were already good suggestions made of simply requiring five different ATs in a group to get the bonus.

No it doesn't. People can still earn the pets by doing the Giant Monster content; that's the purpose of the feature as you stated. Just because it could be earned through other means does not negate that it would still fill the intended role. If it's true that Giant Monsters are one of the most popular activities in the game (and I believe you that it is), then using a unique currency to encourage people to do it should be unnecessary, as people are already doing the content in significant numbers. Therefore, by your own logic, using a pre-existing currency as a reward and avoiding currency bloat should not have a negative impact on Giant Monster activity, and players engaging in Giant Monster content would still receive an additional reward for doing so.

Sorry for the double-post, but given the subject matter I thought this deserved to be kept separate from other thoughts: I think that HC would do well to follow it's own rules and avoid "controversial political content." In modern political parlance, the words "diversity" and "inclusivity" both carry heavy political connotations primarily used by one side of the political spectrum as a positive, and by the other as a negative. These are "charged" words in the current environment, and if HC wants to truly avoid controversial subjects, they should be avoided. What's more, they are current "buzzwords," and are likely to fall out of fashion in time, and when that happens any reference using them will appear dated.

I understand the intent, however I believe the execution is misguided. I think this system will actually cause more confusion for new players, reducing understanding of the various ATs, as it will lead them to believe each AT is pigeonholed into a specific role, when in fact most ATs can fill multiple roles depending on power sets/build.

So what? I'm not saying that to be flippant, but I genuinely don't understand what it would harm if some can already purchase these pets. If you want to encourage people to do content, make that content enjoyable. Pushing them to do content through bribery will only make that content popular temporarily, until players have amassed lots of Unstable Aether. And if you follow the same design for future content updates, you will have to keep making new currencies to encourage players to engage with each one.

You're not alone feeling this way. I'd recommend putting this in the Focused Feedback for the Giant Monster Balancing Pass, since that's the category in which Unstable Aether was introduced.

That doesn't change the fact that it is Yet Another Currency, and an unnecessary one at that. Instead of dropping 1-3 Unstable Aethers, of which 3 can convert to Prismatic Aether, why not just drop 1 Prismatic Aether and tweaking the drop rate slightly, and using Prismatic Aether to purchase these pets? (I challenge the need for Prismatic Aether entirely, but as long as you have it, might as well expand its use a little rather then inventing Yet Another Currency) It's good to know at least that HC finally listened on this one, so thanks for that. These patch notes are very long and I'm afraid that tidbit got lost in the noise.

It is indeed a good guideline, and one which HC has repeatedly ignored and trampled. If it were followed, it should not be necessary to reslot, rebuild, and respec multiple characters with every page update just to keep them playable. Optional, yes, but not necessary.

Consistency would be not changing names that have been around for quite some time.

Do we really need another currency? Especially if its one that converts directly to a currency we already have, and is used at the same vendor? Why not just have these drop Prismatic Aether Particles instead? (while we're at it, can we do something about the name of Prismaic Aether Particles? "PAP" as an abbreviation just carries unpleasant connotations.)

Just looking for clarification here. Does this mean "modeled" after PPD Awakened in terms of powers/mechanics, or in terms of theme/costuming? I ask because my first thought on reading this was that this meant Warshades in PPD uniforms running around with the Council groups, and that doesn't seem right.

Is this really necessary? The old names are fine; do we really need change for change's sake?

Initial thoughts (there's a ton of stuff in this Page, so still digesting a lot of this): I hope that the information on identifying these pylons is available in-game somehow, ideally through an NPC or info terminal of some sort, rather than expecting players to dig up a specific set of patch notes to discover how to identify and use them. "Show, don't tell," as they say. Why? Is it really necessary to sow confusion by changing names that players have become accustomed to? This smacks of change for change's sake. No. Please no. Please, please, stop changing the primary functions of powers. Time Bomb was never a buff/support power, and it's not what it was intended to be. Also, adding a "temporal bubble" is more thematically narrow for character concepts. This may not be the most egregious example in the past couple of years (and may not be the only example in this Page; as I said, there's a lot to digest), but it's one more example showing that the Cottage Rule means nothing to the HC team and they will continue to change powers to be significantly different from their original versions to suit their own whim. Power balance changes in general should NOT require redesigning builds or relearning how to play a particular powerset in order to be effective at the game. When you've don that, it's NOT a "balance," it's a revamp and a replacement. By "modeled as Warshade versions of PPD Awakened," does this mean "modeled" after their power builds, or "modeled" thematically? I'm hoping the former, as having Warshade PPD running around in Council groups doesn't exactly feel on-theme. Edit: Oh, and did we really need another currency? It's starting to feel like a gacha game in here.

The risks were always in play, and yes, some potential legal repercussions. Any of the rogue servers faced those same issues. However, I'm specifically referring to new repercussions for breach of the license agreement; those did not exist prior to an agreement being in place, and are now unique to HC and any other server that signs on to the terms of the agreement.

I'm at least taking the FAQ at face value. Your claim requires assuming it is incorrect or a lie.

No assumptions necessary, unless you think the FAQ is lying? There are zero qualifiers given there; it's all according to NCSoft's whim. All the license does (as stated in the FAQ) is give a framework to attempt to not run afoul of that whim. But claiming that "NCSoft cannot arbitrarily shut them down" is literally incorrect as per the information we've been given.

No, that's not how it works. The company holding the license has all the power, and can revoke it at any time. Or they can leverage the license to force an action from the licensed entity. The FAQ even clearly states that even with the license, NCSoft can still arbitrarily shut them down, so that claim is simply false. Before the agreement, NCSoft would have to send a legal Cease and Desist letter, which if HC chose to challenge the validity of (not saying they would, but it's still a risk NCSoft would have to consider), would have to be backed up with court filings, etc., creating more expense for no profit. Now with the license in place, NCSoft can just say "Stop," and if HC refuses they will be in violation of the license agreement, which opens them to legal repercussions that weren't necessarily in play before.