Eiko-chan

IIRC, Captain Petrovich does at least trick you into doing it.

I might be the one that brought fair into this thread, but I didn't bring it into the discussion. The most common rebuttal to any change in Veteran's Rewards has long been "Veteran Rewards are the only truly fair reward in the game!" I simply wanted to debunk this use of "fair".

More or less correct. Rewards generally are not fair. They are often just.

Once again - unfair, because the friend is being treated differently from you. But just, because the friend has paid dues, and you have not.

Word usage is important. Not all things that are fair are just, and not all things that are just are fair.

Uh, no. Because with my older sibling, by the time I get to 18, I'll have all the same rights and privileges they do. With endless Veteran Rewards, there is no point at which I will ever be equal to my in-game "older siblings".

"Fair": "without favouring one party, in a fair even-handed manner".

Never-ending Veteran Rewards favour players that started playing earlier over players that started playing later. They are "unfair".

PS, I think the word you veterans want is "Just". Not "Fair".

Personally, I'd really like to see the devs officially announce that they were giving up on ever having base raiding. The base building community seemed to really explode when the raid restrictions were removed, and I think it's pretty clear by now that most people don't want raids out of their base, so it's high time that potential excuse for not doing things was removed.

But without an end point, people that join today (or let's go with next week, when the new shiny i17 drops and it's the six anniversary, just to make things nice and pretty) will see a constantly expanding list of things they will not get, at that point which will include 24 individual rewards forever inaccessible to them because they did not start playing in 2004.

That they will eventually get the same 24 rewards that people playing since launch have now does not change the fact that people playing since launch will have 24 more rewards than people starting next week. And they always will have 24 more rewards, no matter how long the new player plays, because new rewards are constantly added onto the top.

For the system to actually be "fair", there has to be an end point of maximum reward. In jobs, this is retirement. What point is this in a game?

Why are commercials always, without fail, so bloody mindless and idiotic? What do they teach in marketing schools, and why do they teach so many people to be so wrong?

I can't remember the last time I saw a professionally-produced trailer or commercial that actually made me want to buy or support the product featured.

Only if it's been changed. The Tanker gets +400% threat for being a Tanker, but then again a Scrapper gets +300% for being a Scrapper.

Otherwise, Taunt adds a threat multiplier of 1000*duration. Without attacks to boost that multiplier, it'll easily be outstripped by people that actually attack, especially other high-threat ATs like Brutes and Scrappers (particularly after you factor in many of these ATs will have taunts (often in an aura) of their own).

With my Tanker, I often find that a taunt alone is not sufficient to strip aggro. A taunt coupled with an attack, however, is an entirely different matter. The intangibility toggle prevents that attack, so I doubt an intangible-toggling taunter will be holding aggro off a team.

That said, I don't disagree with your suggestion. I do think a first-level intangibility toggle is a bad idea - but that's because intangibility itself is of limited usefulness, not because intangible taunting is overpowered.

I'm not sure if you're just simplifying things for sake of argument, or if you actually think Taunt is a status effect with a duration (and that's true in PvP, that is how it works there), but in PvE a Taunt is not a status effect. Using Taunt (or having Taunt applied by a power) adds a fixed amount of threat to the target hit by the taunt, and there is no duration on that - your "threat" number simply increases, and targets attack whomever has the highest threat.

Regular taunting generally will keep the taunter's threat level well above those of others with active play, but if all you do is taunt, toggle, taunt, your threat will quickly fall off the scale and someone else will have more threat than you. To successfully tank, you have to be an active participant; simply taunting something while others attack, especially at a rate lower than "as soon as it recharges", will not be sufficient, especially in longer fights such as against AVs.

I'm not sure a first-level intangibility toggle is a good idea for a set power either, but that's because of the limited usefulness of intangibility itself, and not because I think such a toggle would be unbalanced as a tanking tool.

Never done a LGTF, I have no idea how long it'd take. However...

I'm a "bad" player simply because, instead of ignoring mobs and ambushes, I prefer to stay and fight them? I'm "bad" because I fight my way to objectives, instead of stealthing or simply running to them? I'm "bad" because I don't collect temp powers to steamroll over AVs that I can defeat perfectly fine, albeit a bit slower, without them?

Your definition of "bad" player excludes a lot of people, and I'm not sure I'd want to be anything but a "bad" player by those standards.

It would probably return a different set of values, but they might not necessarily be better; certain tasks might still be sorely under-represented by that, especially the higher-level content (less players available to run) and the longer/more variable content (less time invested to accrue runs).

It's been a while since I did any work with statistics, but there's got to be some method involving standard deviations and so forth that could be used to find a more representative "middle ground" time for tasks, rather than just taking the middle number no matter what it is. If, say, the speed runs for a certain task (like Katie or Virgil) cut off around 55%, and the remaining 45% of runs are much longer, the median time is actually a very poor representative of how long the task takes to complete on average - it's almost assured that those lower times represent a smaller proportional share of the player base due to repeated runs.

Of course, it's been over a year since the last time any merit rebalance was announced. It's entirely possible, with the new reward system in place, there's already been some self-correcting a simple re-run of the numbers would show a discrepancy. Not having access to even the simplest form of the numbers, it's hard to say.

So have kiosks run by gang members. No reason they can't try to make a little extra on the side.

The people making the decisions now were the people doing the work before.

The people making the decisions before are no longer associated with this game.

Major difference.

That was the old, crappy devs, not the new, awesome devs.

There's a little bit of staffing overlap there, sure, but the awesome ones left weren't making the major decisions then.

But that's the whole point of this thread.

I'm confused. Why refuse to comment on what the thread is about?

Do you support removing some endurance cost from low-level attacks, or implementing a universal recovery buff, or some other system to offset low-level endurance problems then?

Or are you just objecting to my idea to object to my idea?

Compromise: Keep TOs and DOs as they are, where they are.

Remove the discrepancy in enhancement values between TOs, DOs and SOs; allow all to simply deliver SO-level enhancement.

Do away with level 15+ TOs and level 25+ DOs altogether to remove the problem of "cheap enhancement" this might create.