PyroclasticNinja

[ QUOTE ]
the only time I've talked about full on free power selection is in response I have never suggested that free form power selection should be implemented in this thread my only suggestion was that they could increase the number of powers available within a power set what those powers were would have to be decided by the Devs based on the balance the sets. I also suggested that it could be a means for the pigeon holing of some sets to be broken eg Fire need not be the only AoE king.


[/ QUOTE ]
So why hold up Champions as an example of such a system? Isn't that a free form power pick system?

[ QUOTE ]
But that system as far as I'm aware never made it past alpha stage so it was never really tested by the players (hell some of the current devs weren't even there in those days) also considering champions has returned to a open power pick system and by all accounts its going to launch with it so it would seem it is workable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Villain epics are an entirely different matter they grant utility and parity with hero epics. (And that goes for both EATs and Epic pools.) Either way the balance is already in there, it wasn't for the most part retrofitted into an existing system.

As for the balance balancing an entirely new set (or rebalancing a proliferated set) is one thing, adding a load of new powers to existing sets is different. Looking at the changes that most sets have had since launch you can see the amount of work that just getting nine powers right is.

Instead of actually adding new power sets and proliferating others you'd rather they just spend time rebalancing extra powers?

[ QUOTE ]
Don't care! England win toss and bat! That is all that's important today!

[/ QUOTE ]
It'll be all they will win.

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if the power sets, if they are in GR, might still be available to everyone, even if they don't buy it? Like the PvP zones were opened up to any Heroes, even if they didn't have CoV?
I'd guess GR will be launched along with an Issure, like CoV was, so it's posisble the power sets might be included in the Issue content as well, with the Praetoria zones and side switching being the paid for stuff in the box.

[/ QUOTE ]
There'll be an issue with GR...

They say i16 will be before GR. How much before though?

Or will i17 be the issue that goes with GR, in which case we're most likely looking at another 5-8 months before launch.

If though they bring i16 out a week before GR, means you get most of the assets for those not buying the xpac with an issue and any game changing changes go into the issue.

I'm trying to recall how they did the issue that introduced CoV, but failing.

When ever I end up on Union for one reason or another it always seems to leave a foul taste in my mouth. I've experienced far more kill stealing in low level zones. And far more objectionable people in chat than on Defiant.

Neither of which has much to do with population because the last time I played for any length of time there both servers were fairly populous.

Saying that I did manage to get blaster to 35 on Union... still not sure how.

If unrestricted access to all powers (or a system like COs) was added you would pretty much have to start the game play aspects of this game from scratch, something that is orders of magnitude more complex than something that lets you change the colours of your powers. Adding something like that can be added simply (from our point of view) because it doesn't actually change anything other than the graphics/animations.

And no I don't think I have sidetracked the thread. I don't think that making the changes that you seem to want is either a good thing or a needed thing. It would be a huge change that would most likely lead to even more balance issues. And if everyone could make uber builds due to more choice of power picks then some would.

I for one have three or four power picks on my already stupidly easy to play fire/kin that I'd happily swap to something even more damaging or powerful. But that is the nature of balance by not wanting to have those picks I have to pick something else, something that in the end makes me more balanced and less OP.
[ QUOTE ]
the elemental melee sets could game alternate versions of the weapon powers and vice versa no longer would you be forced to take the fire sword powers or loose good attacks in the same vain you would be able to create a all fire sword wielding character no punch attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless they do the same damage as the punches, you end up with issues of balance. And if they do do the same damage it is merely Power Customisation which is going in anyway.

There is no freedom of speech on a privately owned forum.

MM like syncronicty but with pets that don't need to be told to attack and that tank generally more effectively than MM pets. 3x Ill/Rad (or Ill/Kin) as a synchronised team (multi-boxing) allowing perma or near perma PA, was going to use Team Teleport on one character to move around missions.

I fail to see the issue there. You are saying that an as yet unreleased system should be used as a model to add a new system to this game. I'm saying we should wait until said system in the other game is proven as a similar system in this game didn't work.

As for the whole blaster melee stuff. If you were to add additional melee attacks to their secondary I don't see an issue. Adding them to their primary will cause major imbalance. For the rest if you say that adding melee to blasters is okay then all the other ATs should get game breaking powers to pick from. After all its only fair.

[ QUOTE ]
That's what my villains are like at the moment. Villain is a very ambiguous term that could encompass a lot of meaning. I'm simply out for my own goals and won't let anyone stop me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same TBH, as are my heroes.

I think it's odd that no-one has mentioned that it looks like the two new sets are in GR and not i16. Unsurprised but I guess there'll be a lot of [censored] of folks.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basic maths yes, but no common courtesy.

If you don't like the answer it doesn't make it less of an answer.

Big Dev team at the moment is working on GR which will be a paid for expansion so will have lots more content than the normal free issues. They will also be working on i16 which will introduce power customisation and possibly power sets. Though from a marketing PoV it would make more sense to put the sets into the paid for expansion which would encourage people to buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting slight, perhaps you could help me. The development team has substantially increased in size yet perversely the content has reached unprecedented lows. Last time I looked five men and his dog produced CoV, so what the frick are the current man hours going into?

[/ QUOTE ]
An, as yet, unreleased product.

What you expect them to materialise from thin air?

It doesn't actually offer any protection to knockback either. Though you don't animate getting back up the spin in air animation is the same length so you're still out of combat for that period whether you're flung back/down or spin.

Basic maths yes, but no common courtesy.

If you don't like the answer it doesn't make it less of an answer.

Big Dev team at the moment is working on GR which will be a paid for expansion so will have lots more content than the normal free issues. They will also be working on i16 which will introduce power customisation and possibly power sets. Though from a marketing PoV it would make more sense to put the sets into the paid for expansion which would encourage people to buy.

[ QUOTE ]
/bind insert powexec_auto <power name>



[/ QUOTE ]
Won't swear to it but it needs quotes around the 2nd part. Thusly:

/bind insert "powexec_auto <power name>"

[ QUOTE ]
I never said don't give scrappers more power picks i said

"blasters getting more melee dose not = scrappers getting ranged"

what bit of that sentence suggests that scrappers wouldn't gain new powers?

[/ QUOTE ]
None of it suggested it. I'm simply puzzled that you think that scrappers shouldn't be able to change their playstyle while other ATs should. If as you seem to think scrappers shouldn't get ranged attacks and should merely get lots of melee attacks (they have controllerish ones already) why is a blaster any different? Why should Blasters not just get lots more ranged attacks?

[ QUOTE ]
Ok so you change a fundamental aspect of the blaster by giving it access to more melee attacks is this a bad thing? I mean really dose it matter where the blaster deals its damage from

[/ QUOTE ]
Yet it seems to matter where a scrapper does its damage from.

[ QUOTE ]
your trying to tell me that changing the variety of powers you can pick from wouldn't change game play after saying earlier that they would be fundamental changes?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all, I think that such a fundamental change to the game is far too much. I'm all for increased choice but effectively removing class distinctions isn't IMO a good step. If we were discussing a new MMO, or CoH2 then changing the way you pick powers is something that bares examining, rebuilding the whole system from scratch now would be exceedingly daft and rather than more choice would in all likelihood lead to a fundamentally different game to the one we have now.

[ QUOTE ]
going by the logic of waiting 5 years maybe the Devs should wait 5 years and see if power customisation is any good before implementing it?

[/ QUOTE ]
How would they see if it works if they don't implement it?

CO hasn't been released yet, saying a feature you want in this game will work based on a game that could well bomb after six months isn't really a good idea. It maybe that Cryptic have got it right this time, or maybe not. Until we can see one way or another sticking with a system that works is almost certainly a better idea.

[ QUOTE ]
3. a placable item that when interacted with becomes something else (that can possibly be interacted with)

[/ QUOTE ]
Really want a click then defend mission objective.

Its partly to do with US law though. From recollection if a US company allows someone to use their IP without challenge at some later point they challenge it they can lose due to not challenging immediately.

If FreeBee Comic Company start releasing a wolverine comic (even if they don't charge) which is clearly not a fanfic (where you assign copyright to the original owner of the character). Yet Marvel do nothing to them.

Ten years later NotFree Comic Company do the same but start to charge. Marvel tries to sue NFCC due to IP infringment.

However when it gets to court the judge could easily throw Marvel out because they failed to protect their IP before. So Marvel (indeed any company) have to be quite fierce and protect their IP even when its not really being threatened because it might be one day and they don't want to lose it because they let people do stuff with it before.

IIRC one of the reasons Blizzard took the Glider program (a WoW bot) to court was to protect their IP, if they hadn't it could have led to other people not only making bots in the future but Blizzard not having any control even though the bots were making use of their code.

[ QUOTE ]
blasters getting more melee dose not = scrappers getting ranged

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?

I mean I'm all for more power sets but why limit this suggestion to one AT? What is so bad about blasters that they need additional powers to pick from that none of the other ATs need?
[ QUOTE ]
blasters are the damage AT giving them different options in how they deliver that damage is not breaking from the mold of the AT you assume 9 snipes based on the current model for snipe which need not be the case again this is where balancing the powers would come in.

[/ QUOTE ]
Blasters are one of the damage ATs. And giving them extra power picks that change the way that they do that damage would break the mould. A blaster's primary pick is about range (check out what it says when you make a blaster, it doesn't say that a blaster is a damage dealer it says that a blaster is ranged damage). If you add many more picks that allow the character to be a non-ranged character with the additional melee attacks in the secondary you are changing a fundamental aspect of the blaster.

[ QUOTE ]
even if the 9 snipe powers were all based of the current snipes yes it would be OP in some situations but then such things are the case now some combinations work better in some situations the 9 snipe blaster would be at a real disadvantage in a cave map for example while his mid range a short range brethren would have the advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Snipe? What the hell else would it be? A long range attack. If you had nine of them it would change the way that blaster played at a fundamental level. Get nine snipes and hover. Never be in danger from non-flying enemies again.

[ QUOTE ]
The balance you talk about could be maintained as i said already similar tek to whats used with veats could be implemented meaning you would still have to choose between powers also there's still only so many powers you can take.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they used that tech to limit the power picks what the hell are you suggesting? Lets add powers to sets so that we have more choice but then use tech to remove those choices to stop it being unbalanced? That makes almost good sense /signed.

As your original comment mentioned that it'd stop you picking a melee attack after you picked a different snipe. That isn't balance. Stopping you picking more than one snipe is balance.

[ QUOTE ]
So i fail to see how a bit more choice within the power sets would be a bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it would completely unbalance some ATs. This isn't some little change that would only effect one or two people. This would require every single Power Set in the game to be updated and the whole lot rebalanced. Look at how much fun they're having with PvP balance, you want them to add more powers, changing they way ATs play. That is a huge amount of change.

Change to evolve the game play is good. Change for the sake of change is never good.

As for CO using a different system. Tell me its good in five years time and I may well agree with you. To change CoH to that system is a rewrite and not a simple change.

Some suggestions for changing and improving existing slash commands.


Changes:

• /powexec - Using Powers
• /insp_exec - Using Inspirations
• /goto_tray - Setting trays simplified.

Additions:

• /logout - Quiting to the login screen.
• /bindslot - Binding keys to the extended bars.

/powexec - Using Powers

Currently to activate a power you use /powexec_name, to toggle it on/off you can use /powexec_toggle_on or /powexec_toggle_off. And if you want to set its auto state you use /powexec_auto. And while you can remove the underscore '_' to make a bit more space ultimately you spend more time in a macro or bind describing what you want to do with a power than naming the actual power.

So my suggestion would be to remove the whole powexec command system and use the power name with an option instead. eg:

/<power name> <option>

To toggle on Tough and Weave currently you need to use:

/bind <key> "powexec_toggle_on Tough$$powexec_toggle_on Weave"

Under my suggestion:

/bind <key> "Tough on$$Weave on"

Options would be:

• on - Toggling the power on. (powexec_toggle_on)
• off - Toggling the power off. (powexec_toggle_off)
• act - Activating the power if off or deactivating if on (powexec_name)
• auto - which would change a power to auto activate. (powexec_auto)

These options would only reflect what a power can do currently, so you couldn't 'auto' a snipe power for example. Additionally powers like Recall Friend would still function as they do now.

/insp_exec - Using Inspirations

I think that the inspexec_name command should also be simplified. Currently it uses an inspiration based on the inspiration's name, it works as is but takes up a lot of space when something like this would be as effective and more customisable:

/insp_<type> <size> <type2> <option>

• <type> - Denotes the inspiration to use initially.
• <size> - Denotes the size of the inspiration (1 smallest to 3 biggest).
• <type2> - Denotes what inspiration you want to end up with when combining.
• <option> - Denotes anything extra you want to do. eg Give (gives to targeted player/pet) or Delete.

/bind <key> "insp_blue 1$$insp_blue 2$$insp_blue 3"

The options denote the size of the inspiration (1 smallest 3 biggest) and the color denotes the normal color pick of the insp. If colours aren't a good idea (colour blind or perception) the colour could be set to what the insp effects:

• End (Blue)
• HP (Green)
• Def (Purple)
• Res (Orange)
• Mez (Pink)

.:

/bind <key> "insp_end 1$$insp_end 2$$insp_end 3"

Similarly changing the give and combine commands so that they are much simpler would be good too:

/bind <key> "insp_blue 1 red"

Combining three small blue inspirations into a single small red. Appending give to the normal command would give to the targeted entity (player or pet).

/bind <key> "insp_blue 1 give"

Finally appending Delete would delete one of those Inspirations.

The original slash command could be retained for other types of inspiration eg: Presents and Ambrosia.

Current methods of use including drag and drop and simply clicking the Inspirations would remain unchanged.

An additional benefit of this change would mean you can effectively name inspirations without having to find an external reference of the name.

/goto_tray - Setting trays simplified.

Not much used by most I'd guess but very useful for HEATs. Simply put the /goto_tray commands (goto_tray, goto_tray_alt &amp; goto_tray_alt2) can be used to set what tray number each of the basic power trays are being used.

Suggestion simplify the commands:

/goto_tray <current> <new> <option>

• <current> - Denotes the tray you want to change 1-3 (One being the initial tray).
• <new> - Denotes the number you're changing to.
• <option> - Denotes whether or not the change is a toggle or momentary. If omitted the default is toggle. (Takes first letter of option.)

/bind <key> "goto_tray 1 5"

Will change the default tray to tray 5.

/bind <key> "goto_tray 3 5 m"

While the key is held the third expansion tray (of the power trays) switches to tray 5, when the key is released it returns to the previous selected tray.

/logout - Quiting to the login screen.

Currently if you wish to logout you can use the menu option giving a choice of logging out or quitting the game. There is already a /quit command which bypasses this menu.

A method of logging out to the login screen quickly is to use the /buy_coh slash command and than hitting yes or using:

/bind <key> "buy_coh$$dialog_yes"

However this could be simplified by adding a /logout command that would achieve the same end without a)Launching a browser window b)Occasionally crashing the game or PC (especially on older PCs, my eldest PC dies 1 in 10 times with the above method).

/bindslot - Binding keys to the extended bars.

Currently we have three power trays that we can bind keys to, after that keys need to be bound directly to commands, which while easy is not always what is wanted. For this option to work each of the seven expansion bars would need to be visibly marked somehow.

/bind_slot <expansion bar> <slot 0-9>

• <expansion bar> - Denotes which bar you are binding to.
• <slot> - Denotes which slot on the bar you are binding to.

[ QUOTE ]
but a focus on the correct role could still be maintained while giving diversity to the powers. a blaster who's primary roll is damage will still be doing damage regardless of weather its from melee range or extream snipe range.

[/ QUOTE ]
And we'd better give scrappers ranged attacks too? Because if you have a choice between a AT that has low survivability due to lack of mitigation and an AT that has plenty what will people choose?

[ QUOTE ]
but the powers needn't even brake from the AT mould taking blasters again a more snipe attacks could be added to the set to allow the creation of a almost pure sniper style character (something i would love to do with my AR blaster) or more close ranged blast or AOE blasts could be added it would allow any blaster to specialise in a discipline (AOE,Snipe,mid range,short range) or to mix it up no longer would the fire blaster be the automatic king of AOE or the energy blaster be single target centric.

some one mentioned controllers fire/kins would become god like. why would you your assuming such a system would be implemented without any consideration for balance which seems a foolish thing to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gotta point out that does seem to be what you're suggesting above. If you add a whole range of extra powers into any power pick, you will end up with balance issues. Okay so you pick 9 snipes, that'd be OP in some situations. Having the system as it is creates balance by giving you powers that you may not need/like. Adding powers into the mix to give you more overall choice with one power set would remove that balance.

[ QUOTE ]
As to every one gravitating to wards specific builds with specific power pics yes that mite happen

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think its a case of 'might' though. The original idea for powers in the game was that you would be able to pick any power you wanted. And all that caused was a lot of tanks with AoE and ranged attacks. So they implemented what they have now.

[ QUOTE ]
Also lets face it you don't need a mega uber build in coh to play the game and sub optimal builds can normally do well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why so few people bother with Fire/Kins?

Nothing forces people to create optimal builds, but if you make it easy to create super OP builds, you get to the point where you get teams that only take people who have specific power sets or picks. There was a time when as a defender you would have problems getting a team unless you were a 'healer'.

Adding more power choices as you suggest would only make the situation worse.

Adding more power sets that move away from the current traditional types would be good, adding more choice to the current sets wouldn't be IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The run animation is designed to look good from behind. Well for female model the huge and male look awful from any direction. Also when the body is doing anything but standing still the neck stretches oddly which IMO looks awful.

But I seem to recall reading that the various animations in game were done from scratch rather than mapping an actors actual motion. That might be a nice upgrade to see and make the whole thing look better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh god wouldn't it just?
Rule number one of any game based on humans/humanoid creatures; Study your bloomin subject matter. It's elementary!

IMO, the female run animation looks [censored] horrible. Its all elbows. At least the male and huge look semi-believable, but the female arms should be lopped off an replaced, frankly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Male and huge look fine if you're RPing that they're chimps or gorillas.

Seriously watch an adult male athlete run then compare it to the in game version.

As for female models... wouldn't know about the elbows... not what I watch TBH.

Plus I prefer fly on most characters.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I recently got my 18 month vet reward and with the new samurai armour have been able to make my samurai nekomatta, YAY!

But have encountered a little problem. The samurai leg armour attaches as a belt, as do the tails. So, as it stands my Samurai nekomatta is a manx samurai nekomatta!


[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't you tuck your tail in your armor for protection anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]
Gosh no, I'd have an armour tail protector... Tucking it in sounds very uncomfortable. With a blade on the end for extra damage.

More tail options in their own section would be great addition.

Never got far with storm so can't comment on Gale. But Forcebolt is an awesome power. If nothing else you can whack four of one of the knockback sets in to give mag 4 knockback prevention.

On my FF MM I use it all the time... in facts its the only real attack I have as I let the pets do all the rest of the damage. As for what level you get it thats down to balance IMO.

Blasters already have melee set secondaries. So all that adding other melee styles would be more choice. Though I disagree that having the melee choices in the primary would be good. At primaries/sencondary should focus on the correct role.

With GR coming out it seems possible that some of the existing 1st/2nd types will be changed, as it may well be that heroes will get access to Ranged Dmg/Buff-debuff or Control/Damage (Corruptor &amp; Dominator etc). Which will improve things a little IMO.

The only true addition to what we have I'd like to see is some melee sets for defenders, and maybe even a change in role of defender to Buff (de-buff)/Damage especially as several of the defender primaries work better at melee range.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're going to the beautiful South of France for two weeks in late July and you want to play CoH?.

[/ QUOTE ]

^ This

RL &gt; RP &gt; Exp, is our SGs equation
Or, simplified;
RL &gt; CoX

[/ QUOTE ]
French Holiday != RL

Its not just MA that has changed the learning curve though. The game had got to a point without MA that you could get from 1-50 without actually learning how to play. And while MA certainly hasn't helped the situation. Getting rid of it won't make a great deal of difference... well except losing more players who like it.