Eva Destruction

Renowned
  • Posts

    3975
  • Joined

  1. Eva Destruction

    Your Top 5

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Scarlet Shocker View Post
    When NCSoft took over the IP we had a bunch of QoL fixes. We've not had so many since and I suspect we've had all we're going to get for a good while so the costume creator's still going to feel clunky for the time being, for example. The next few issues are all about new Content - something that the player base begged for for a long time so now we're getting it, asking for more QoL stuff is kind of pointless. Paragon Studios, for all their efforts don't have the team to do both at the same time - not to mention the fact that one can affect the other.
    Huh?

    I20 is expanding the Black Helicopters so villains don't have to run to the *** end of Nerva and Grandville.

    I19 merged the train lines, added hospitals to hazard zones, and insp dispensers to hospitals.

    I18 merged the markets, which is a huge QoL improvement. We also got the "closest to completion" badge tab.

    I17 increased the number of open missions and arcs we could have, added the option to abandon missions, added the "show last objective" feature, and allowed us to email stuff between characters.

    I16 gave us additional difficulty options and supersidekicking.

    I could go on...my point is that even though there hasn't been an issue focused on QoL improvements in a while, QoL improvements are constantly being made.
  2. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kelenar View Post
    This is part of the reason for the feeling of lackey-ism villainside... plus, villains tend to have much more variable goals, so it's hard to make arcs that work for every concept. Most heroes want, in one form or another, to save the world. Some villains want to rule the world. Some villains want to destroy the world. Some villains just want power, some villains just want to kill a specific hero, some villains want to kill all mutants, some villains want to destroy Paragon, some villains are just trying to save the world through any means necessary, some villains just like to see stuff explode, some villains want to release extradimensional horrors from their prison, and some villains just want money. Even if you narrow it down to the few most common ones, that's still a lot more variability to account for than heroes have.
    In an ideal game world, you'd have a little bit of all of the above, so you could pick and choose which you wanted to do. However, most villain content just gives you a pat on the head for being a good little evil minion. The tip missions swing entirely the other way. It's like they heard all the criticism that redside didn't make you feel evil enough and filled the missions with evil for its own sake.
  3. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blood_Beret View Post
    If you have to have a tank and healer on your villain team, then you don't know how to play redside. I have been on plenty of teams with people that are use to playing heroes. Most refuse to change their brain washed mind set, until you prove them wrong. I know plenty of Stalker that are great players and assets to the team. again, don't sterotype an AT. Better than a Defender with just one attack.
    Yes, I know there are tactics villains can use to adapt. Heroes don't have to use those tactics. Because blueside is easier. And saying that a good Stalker is better than a bad Defender isn't really saying much.

    Quote:
    #1 rule of Mayhem mission small or no team(s).
    This is a design flaw in my book.

    Quote:
    EB/AVs I do this all the time, pop a couple of inspirations and jump in. I have no problems.
    And yet some people do. Because EBs and AVs are harder than bosses. By design. And redside has more of them. Yes, I play redside all the time too, successfully. That doesn't mean it's easier than blue.

    And Uberguy, let's not forget Wyvern and Goldbrickers, both nastier than most of what heroes will face at those levels.
  4. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blood_Beret View Post
    2. Most Blue side teams work more for balanced teams and have the mindset we need a tank, a healer, etc, where as Redside is built more on the premise of kill it before it can hurt you. Doms and Brutes benefit from a faster pace, which is not always the case Blue side. An MM can actually make up for the lack of an AT, with buff, debuffs, pets to take aggro, and BG Mode.
    Redside teams do this too. The problem is the "tank" is less survivable than the heroes' tank, the "defender" adds less survivability than the heroes' Defender, and if you want crowd control and team support you have to invite two people. And Stalkers get the pity spot.

    Quote:
    3. Most Heroes don't know how to do a Mayhem mission. The run strait to the Bank like a Safeguard. THis triggers ambushes, and the ambushes will follow you to the bank. If you fly or jump too high near the banks in higher level missions, you will also trigger longbow eagles to swarm in on you. A Mayhem mission, walk from mob to mob and do side missions for extra time, also you get extra time for each PPD mob, and destructable enviornment.
    Getting extra time also gets harder the bigger your team is, since you need to destroy more stuff, and at the mid-levels you often can't defeat the PPD spawns in 30 seconds. Safeguards are more straight-forward.

    Quote:
    4. Yes there are more EB/AV encounters redside, but as mentioned above, the red toons are built better for solo play.
    The EBs and AVs redside also tend to hit harder than their blueside counterparts, and villain ATs often sacrifice survivability for kill speed. If you play a game of "kill it before it can kill you" with an EB, you will lose.

    Quote:
    5. IMO Archanos is tougher than Longbow with varied resistances and varied damage. Not saying those annoying Nullfiers and Spec Ops. The one thing I hate is all the -jump and -fly from these.
    Arachnos is both tougher and easier. Tougher because no matter what your particular weakness is, they WILL have a mob that exploits it. Easier because once you kill that mob, you're fine. Those annoying Nullifiers are designed to mess everybody up, and because that's the only lieutenant they have, there's a lot of them. And once you start getting into the Wardens, they're just as bad as any Arachnos boss.
  5. Eva Destruction

    Your Top 5

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dark_Respite View Post
    4. AE. New search, review, and recommendation methods, first and foremost. As far as available AE resources, EVERYTHING goes into it, unless there is something so heinously broken about it that it just won't WORK. Powers? There. Costume parts? There. Mobs? There. Maps? There. Custom placement (albeit a bit limited)? There. Customizable NPCs? There. Spiffy dialogue mechanics? There.
    The first thing I would do would be to add all the stock enemies that are currently missing from AE. First on my list: Super Stunners, Chi Masters, Girlfriend from Hell, Kronos Titan AV version (which can scale down to an EB, while the currently available GM version does not) IDF, War Works, Goliath War Walker, updated versions of the Praetorian AVs. There is absolutely no reason for those enemies not to have been made available in AE as of i19. The non-Praetorian ones should have been added with i18.
  6. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Venture View Post
    Who, as it happens, already has a weapon designed to disrupt powers taken from the Well. I'm guessing we'll never have a chance to fire an Orestes Rifle at Tyrant or his crew, though.
    I fired it at Reichsman once, it didn't do anything.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DarkGob View Post
    But they've been doing this since day 1. Heroes are registered with the FBSA and are forced to work with an origin-specific department. Villains are Destined Ones. There are countless examples of the game forcing you into its lore, I don't see why this is any different.
    Heroes are registered with the FBSA so the game can explain away things like "your security level isn't high enough" and how you get hooked up to the mediporter system. It doesn't affect gameplay at all. It doesn't affect concept at all. Who you are and where your powers come from doesn't change just because you register, any more than getting a Social Insurance Number changes anything about you in real life. You don't have to work with an origin-specific department at all. You can go. Hunt. Kill Hellions. I haven't run those lameo contacts in ages.

    Villains are Destined Ones yes, and must go to patrons to get PPPs, and a lot of people have problems with that too. Just because there's precedent doesn't mean it's good precedent. In fact, I'd argue that the player response to the Destined One and Patron Pool nonsense should have taught the devs to not make that same mistake again.

    Quote:
    Presumably the Orestes Rifle only works on Incarnates who took the easy path to power, not True Incarnates like Tyrant.
    Tyrant did take the easy path. He drank from the Well, just like all the other Marcus Coles. Besides, the Orestes Rifle only dispels enchantments granted by the Well of Furies, and will presumably not affect someone's inherent Incarnate power...which would explain why it doesn't work on Statesman in the RSF either. It makes a lot of sense if you think about it in D&D terms. Still, there's nothing saying they can't build a better one, especially with all these new Incarnate test subjects running around.
  7. Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShadowsBetween View Post
    To be honest, the Tips missions don't really help, since the writing is often even *more* cliched than for the older missions. AND the mission is written in a way that removes *any* sense of choice. You're there to beat down Flambeaux just for the sake of proving how evil you are. Not because she's a nitwit, or because she's managed to inconvenience you, but solely to prove that you're more evil than she is. Frankly, I ignore the Tips missions entirely now on most of my characters, because NONE of the choices appeal to me as they are written.
    The villain/rogue tip missions entirely miss the point, and only serve to paint villains as nihilistic psychopaths. The difference between a villain a rogue isn't just the what, it's the how. A rogue will hold a gun to your head and demand you hand over your wallet. A villain will shoot you and take your wallet. A rogue wants your wallet, but understands that taking it is wrong. A villain feels entitled to your wallet. You don't matter to a villain at all, you are only significant as long as you're standing in the way of what they want. The point they miss is the "what you want" part. As a great hero once said, "You can't destroy everything! Where would you sit?"

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BrandX View Post
    As for the story arcs, redside feels more like a "you're the lackey" type (imo anyways), and doesn't get much better in the level 50 mark in that feeling (again imo).

    I think part of this, is with how things works from an MMO stand point. Going to contacts works for heroes. Going to other people for a villain, seems like a "I cant do my own evil".
    As much as the i17 and i19 arcs have their flaws, and those flaws are numerous, they do at least manage to avoid the "you're a lackey" problem. Your contacts have their own agenda for helping you, but ultimately, you're the one who benefits most.

    As for direct hero vs. villain conflict, the closest we come outside PvP zones is with the Mayhem/Safeguards. Remember, the Paragon Heroes/Rogue Isles Villains are supposed to be NPC representations of player characters. There's also that villain respec team in the thorn tree mission of the STF, the guys in the Atlas Park mission of the Barracuda and Khan TFs, and the Rogues Gallery in the tip missions, who switch sides just like we do. Parallel content like this does allow for a simulation of hero/villain conflict, without necessarily introducing PvP.
  8. Quote:
    Originally Posted by starphoenix View Post
    Depends on what you mean by harder. Redside doesn't have the Praetorian arcs where you have to do about 10 or so missions with a bunch of AVs/EBs in them
    No, but redside does have an AV/EB in just about every arc post-40, and most of them are tougher than the Praetorians. You also get crap like Biff and Crimson. Blueside you can avoid most of the EBs by avoiding Maria Jenkins.

    Redside has less zoning, but the zones themselves are bigger, and Grandville contacts do love sending you to the *** end of Nerva quite frequently. And there's always the tedium of Longbow > Arachnos > Longbow > Longbow > Arachnos > CoT on a giant Oranbega map! Yay, I got a mission that isn't against Longbow or Arachnos!
  9. Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheDeepBlue View Post
    If we don't, though, we'd have to start stealing stuff from Malta.
    At least if you steal stuff from Malta you know what you're stealing. The Sapper gun was designed to take down and control metas and the Titan is made out of people, but at least you know that and can make an informed choice. And ultimately, Malta's stuff is just stuff; it's not going to turn on you and decide to take you over or stop working just when you need it most because it decides it doesn't like you anymore.
  10. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
    Anyway, I feel the key mistake here was in trying to make the well sentient, which I really don't think was necessary. I DO know why it was done, however: the same reason all of Going Rogue's missions were written as they are - to be intentionally morally ambiguous. We spent years asking for choice, which the developers appear to have interpreted as asking for a morally ambiguous environment, which I'm not sure is the correct reading of that request.
    Rather than getting more choice, we're getting less choice. Our characters' morality is now being dictated to us. We are told that this is what heroes do, this is what villains do, this is what Rogues do, this is what Vigilantes do, and in the end everybody must be ok with subjugating themselves to this greater cosmic source and putting all their resources toward fighting evil goatee Statesman.

    The only thing added with Going Rogue that gave even a semblance of moral choice was the tip missions, and they had to in order to accomplish their purpose. Praetoria's moral choice missions came down to "kill the guy Tyrant wants to you to kill or kill the guy Calvin Scott wants you to kill" most of the time. They weren't moral decisions, they were just decisions on who to side with.

    Quote:
    I'm not even sure how much sentience the thing has. It doesn't appear to have a very complex, nuanced character shaped by experience, belief and emotion, so much as it appears to be a broken record going on about power and will and power and will and power. I see the Well less like a character and more like a mcguffin, just one capable of vocalising its actions.
    Just because it's a poorly-written character doesn't mean it's not sentient. Its sentience was clearly established when it took over Recluse and Statesman.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DarkGob View Post
    Presumably the devs want to drive their own game's story forward by tying characters into the lore. I don't really see the problem here, can't you just ignore the parts you don't like and make up your own reasoning?
    I see the problem as the devs want to drive their own game's story forward by tying characters into the lore. They don't need to do that, they shouldn't do that, the lore should be there for our characters to tie themselves into however they see fit.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Melancton View Post
    And yes, I "Mystery Science 3000" that aspect, but I am not happy that the official lore makes the ultimate force of the universe the Well. It does not officially affirm Good nor Evil, but just the desire to have Power. I think the Devs figured that makes it "Neutral," but by favoring Cole, I cannot see how that does not make it "Evil."
    Except "Mystery Science 3000" should be applied to stuff like "nobody ever goes to the bathroom on Star Trek," not the entire game's current major plotline. What you're doing, not that I blame you, is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you."

    Quote:
    I have no problem with game mechanics that allow Vigilantes and outright Villains, because they are on parallel tracks to the same general level of power. You are not shoehorned to a particular moral decision in order to hit level 50, say. Not so if you want the next level of power, which the Devs have unfortunately presented as it stands.
    Which is funny, because after you make the stupid choice your only path to greater power is essentially heroic.
    Quote:
    The Well of Furies previously was something non-sentient and passive; simply "a" means of becoming Super. Two guys found it, drank from it and the uses that they made of the abilities that resulted were guided by their respective moralities. That is different from a sentient Well making what are ultimately moral choices by favoring the evil Tyrant above all. Further, we are told that the Well has to be "resisted" or it will take you over completely. While this is all presented as not having any particular morality, and thus "amoral," I would agree with those that have concluded the Well is acting in an Evil fashion, and if Stupid is as Stupid does, the Well is Evil. And the Well is running the whole show as it is presented. So I ignore that aspect for the moment, since it is incompatible with my own lore. I am just getting antsy that the Devs will push this further and further to where participating at the highest level will mean having, if I may draw the comparison, to wear some form of an armband that I do not ever care to wear.
    They already have. You're wearing the I'm Stupid armband. Hero or villain, your character is an idiot. You established this as soon as you clicked on Mender Ramiel.
  11. Eva Destruction

    Your Top 5

    1) AE would receive frequent updates so authors can have as many options as possible. The search engine would be revamped to make it easier for players to find stuff to play. Dev's Choice would be awarded every month at the bare minimum, along with other developer-sponsored contests and incenitves for people to play AE arcs. More slots would be added to some of the more lack-luster vet reward milestones.

    2) Bases would get love. Salvage storage would be increased, the editor would be made less clunky, more decorative items would be made available, along with proper wall and floor items and a greater variety of skins. Individual "player housing" would be implemented so everyone could play.

    3) More aliens, space Nazis, evil chomping eyeballs and dark gods and fewer evil goatee Freedom Phalanx enemies.

    4) Martial Arts secondary for Blasters.

    5) More focus on content that adds to the depth of the game world and less focus on flashy gimmicks. I'd start by adding a 30-35 villain SF, then revamp the Freedom Phalanx TFs, then the legacy 1-30 content. After that, it would be more level 30-50 content.
  12. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rayonn View Post
    So what if we ignore them, and just write for people who are interested enough in playing well-written arcs that they take the time to read reviews or look at the MA finder channel, instead of picking off the first page.
    Most of those people have already played most of our arcs. This forum and the global channel is mostly just a few people playing each other's arcs. Whereas a five-star rated arc with a decent number of ratings will actually get random plays every once in a while.

    The forum and the global channel are additional tools for the truly committed, they shouldn't be necessities, either for finding good arcs to play or getting people to play yours.
  13. Giant mecha. That is all. Bonus points if it transforms into a spaceship.
  14. Quote:
    Originally Posted by UberGuy View Post
    For me, a goal with what I think is a terrible journey is not worth pursuing. A goal with no journey is too easy. A journey with no goal becomes aimless to me, and I will stop exploring it.

    So I won't engage in the journey without an appealing goal. I won't pursue an appealing goal if it's behind a journey I don't enjoy.

    So the two are not separable. They have to act in concert.

    The complaints the OP is referring to are from people who, for a variety of reasons, consider the goal attractive but the journey unattractive. They may not mind some journey, but they don't like the ones available for that particular goal.
    What he said.

    The journey should not be a grind. I have multiple characters stalled out in the 30s because it became a grind for them. I enjoy watching a character grow, I don't want to rush to the end, but at the same time if every step along the way is unpleasant the end goal isn't enough incentive to continue.
  15. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slashman View Post
    You know its interesting that there's no shortage of peace-loving, hand-holding people ready to stand up and state how horrible an impact PVP can have on someone's life. I tend to wonder if those same people never have spiteful or hateful feelings towards family members. They never say harsh things to their significant others. Never cheat. Never wrong their children or fellow workers. Always turn the other cheek in any conflict and live perfect little lives with nary a bad word being said about them by any one.

    And if that isn't the case, where do they possibly find the leeway to be horribly offended by the possibility of maybe hurting someone in a multiplayer game who's design is to have teams/individual players compete against each other?
    You seem to be incapable of understanding this, so I will say it one last time:

    Video games are not real life. Video games are pretendy fun time. People don't want the stuff they don't like in real life but have to deal with because it's real life to carry over into their pretendy fun time.
  16. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slashman View Post
    If I set my mind on breaking the Guinness Book of World Records record of the most one-arm push-ups and it just so happens that my friend has the current record, should I feel bad that I'm trying to break it?

    I mean if doing one-arm push-ups is something that I love and train for, how rational is it to not do it because maybe I'll do better than a real person?
    It isn't. Your example though, just proves my point, since trying to break a record is an inherently competitive goal. Who you're competing against is irrelevant; what matters is that you're measuring your accomplishment against other people's.

    Quote:
    This has never been about pushing people to do PVP. I commented because I'm rather tired of hearing people flog PVP as if it was some sort of plague while not really getting what its all about.
    I'm only talking about PvP because someone else brought it up, it's a perfect example of a game aspect that makes some people uncomfortable, and you keep insisting that it shouldn't make people uncomfortable. You could just as easily use the example of PuGs or the market, and some advocates of those activities would probably chime in and claim that these activities are fun, relaxing, and they don't see why anyone would be opposed to participating in them.
  17. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slashman View Post
    Not much. But to say you suck at all PVP(across all games of all genres) is a rather difficult statement to accurately make. It would probably be more accurate to say you suck at the PVP games you've tried. That's not actually the same thing.
    If we're talking specifically about video games, then yes, it's a pretty easy statement to make. If you have sub-par reflexes then you will most likely suck at PvP in most games that use that label.

    Quote:
    So there's no second or third place? That's interesting. There are winners and second and third places points awarded in many online multiplayer games.
    Even if there is a second or third place, someone will still be in last place.

    Quote:
    No doubt. But that doesn't mean they won't do what it takes to achieve their goals in said situation.
    If my "goal" is to pay my rent, then yes, I will go to work. In that case, situations that make me uncomfortable are a necessary evil, and I have to put up with them or face a worse evil, namely eviction. In a game though, the concept of a "necessary evil" is contrary to the very nature of what a game is, namely something you do for fun.

    Quote:
    My point is that competition or the drive to do better is part of human nature. It allows us to progress.
    The two are not necessarily intertwined. Competition only becomes a factor when you place a lot of importance on what other people are doing. Are you telling me that the guy who went from being completely inactive to doing a 10-mile run has accomplished nothing, because some other guy did the 10-mile run faster, and some other guy did a 20-mile run?

    Quote:
    Here's the other key thing. Getting together to play a few rounds of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory with friends, has never caused me any high levels of stress and quite the opposite has helped me to relax after a hard, long week at work. The only thing that truly attaches stress to a video game is the person sitting behind the keyboard and mouse. Because everything else takes place in your head.
    Yeah, that's kind of the point of the thread. You find it relaxing, other people find it stressful. Should those people who find it stressful be pushed to do it, just because you find it relaxing?

    Quote:
    Not saying those people don't exist. I just question the number of them that actually do. It's something I suppose neither of us can prove conclusively. So it's probably worthless to argue about in the end.
    It sounds to me like you might just be a competitive person yourself. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you realize not everybody shares your outlook.
  18. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slashman View Post
    My argument was that people are seldom honest about why they won't do PVP(not MMO PVP...PVP period).
    Really? Because I know quite a few people who flat out say "I don't PvP because I suck at it." How much more honest can you get?

    PvP is a zero-sum game. Someone wins, and someone loses, there's really no middle ground. Some people dislike that very concept, because they don't like anyone to lose.

    Quote:
    1) The PVP design of the game sucked and wasn't fairly balanced. (A gameplay issue)

    2) One or more of your friends acted like jerks and ruined the game for you somehow.

    3) You lost a lot and discovered that you don't like to lose so PVP is not for you. Maybe your skills weren't up to par and you felt embarrassed etc.
    That third one is important, because it's the very nature of PvP that your skills must be up to par in order to participate. Whereas in cooperative play, the bar is much lower. I might have an uber multi-billion inf build, but my friend who is using only SOs and took whatever powers sounded cool and whose reflexes aren't quite up to par is still contributing. In a PvP environment, I'd just annihilate him. Now you tell me, which environment is more comfortable for said friend?

    Quote:
    The scenario that I find the least credible, as noted in my first post, is the one where a person says they are so non-competitive that the thought of even playing against their friends is terribly uncomfortable. I find it hard to believe because those same people likely play all sorts of other games where they can win and someone else loses or they competed in sports at one time or another or they tried their hardest to get a promotion before someone else at their job etc.
    I can honestly tell you I have not participated in a competitive sport since high school, and that was only because they made us do it. A lot of other competitive games, such as board games, have an element of luck involved. As for competing professionally, it is something you have to do, not something people necessarily want to do. I'm sure a lot of people would be happiest if both they and the other guy could get the promotion, so they wouldn't have to compete, because that kind of competition is very very stressful for a lot of people and is most definitely a case of being forced out of your comfort zone.
    Quote:
    Its human nature to want to do better. Anyone can suppress it, sure. My point is that most of the time people aren't being honest about it and the true problem lies elsewhere.
    That's a very narrow view of human nature you present there. What about people for whom "good enough" really is good enough? Granted, in real life you might call them slackers, or lazy, but what's wrong with taking that approach to a game you play for fun? Or what about people driven to do better than they were yesterday? Some people aren't interested in competing with anyone but themselves.
  19. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slashman View Post
    You have people who say they'd much rather cooperate with others than ever compete with them in a game. I'm going to assume those same people never play Scrabble, Monopoly, Chess or any other game where they might win and someone else might lose? I mean...they never competed in sports at school and basically live their lives with an unquenchable hunger to never do better than the other guy?
    I think it's more of a case of living your life without an unquenchable hunger to do better than the other guy. If you do something well, and I do something well, I don't care who does it better. I just want to do well, and I commend you for also doing well. Some people, that's all they care about, and direct competition goes against that spirit.
  20. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slashman View Post
    That's dead wrong. That only applies if what you're looking for in PVP is something akin to griefing.

    I can't really stand the PVP in COX. Not because I can't kill other player avatars here, but because it doesn't feel very superheroish to me. Something that is more important than 'balance' in that case. However, I love playing Team Fortress 2. I'm still killing player avatars, but its a lot more fun to me than the mechanics involved in COX PVP. I do very much enjoy PVE in COX though.

    My attraction to PVP isn't centered on my liking to waste other players(that's part of the fun, of course, but not the only draw).
    For some people, being in direct competition with other players in a PvP setting in and of itself makes them uncomfortable. I have friends who will not and never have tried PvP even with friends in the arena. There is no potential for griefing there. They are among friends. But the idea of directly competing against these friends just doesn't appeal to them. It's not the implementation of PvP that turns them off, it's the very concept. They prefer to cooperate with others, not compete.
  21. They're automatons. Duh.
  22. Ooo, thread necromancy! As of today Dawnrazor had been offline for 107 days, hadn't actually played anything in longer, and hadn't updated this thread in even longer. I know that I ran her through "Task Force Mutternacht" for the Player's Choice awards, but there must have been a few more between the last update and now.

    Anyway, I dusted her off, respecced into Inherent Fitness, and after sifting through a few pages of farms, I found an arc that wasn't one.

    #298290 Papers and Paychecks

    It's a PW arc, what more needs to be said? In this Rogue arc, I'm giving up my life of crime to get a real job. I'm going to go work for Crey. Yeah. It's funny, with tons of detail, and all kinds of canon references reappropriated for humor value. And I'm pretty sure this is the only arc in AE with "Photocopy your butt" as a mission objective.
  23. I would love if one of the slots added a PBAoE aura. You could choose between a damage aura, a mez aura, a debuff aura or a buff aura, with varying secondary effects. I would especially love it if each tree had an option a taunt secondary effect. My /SR and /DA Scrappers have a problem with runners, and I'd like to finally be able to fix that. Confront helps but it's not enough.
  24. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha View Post
    You see the Praetors public faces and then the darker and darker layers beneath them-
    (Except Anti-Matter...I kinda feel sorry for the guy. And, lets face it, he's the only kinda good one. He refuses to allow a reactor to blow up, something which would kill hundreds)
    And yet, Anti-Matter is the big bad in the next Incarnate trial.

    I agree with you, he's the most sympathetic of the bunch. Possibly because I can identify with his frustration at how shiny-chasers with ADD are rewarded while people who want things done right are ignored....

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Golden Girl View Post
    How exactly could you do that when those two Praetors are so obviously evil?
    The same way we can hand over Pyriss to Peter Themari. It's called roleplaying. Nobody expects you to understand.
  25. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wonderslug View Post
    - At that level range Vahzilok and Thorns scale pretty brutally. Running it with three people isn't so bad. Running it with eight makes every Vahz spawn a raging tsunami of bile. And the Thorns? Chill of the Night, Dispersion Bubble, Earthquake--who needs to hit things, AMIRITE?
    This. I used to limit my Posi runs to four people unless we had some exemped purpled-out level 50 controllers.