Snow Globe

Nope, my annoyance there is only with the people that post negative rep without leaving their name.

Then you should have said so without the sarcasm. I gave feedback, with my name attached, about that tone. If you want a decent conversation, I am willing to talk at whatever level you choose. I did not start with that tone and I don't want to continue at that level.

Given his own recorded statements, I don't think I have come to the wrong conclusion. The interview I linked to said exactly that he would have changed the requirements sooner. Additionally, his statements in the past support that statement. Like it or not, he IS worried about "devaluing" badges that people have achieved. Even if that achievement is through means that the development team don't like.

You said that you don't recall him saying that he refused to change requirements after people got the badge. When I post a direct quote (with audio) from Positron saying exactly that, you backpedal.

That post quoting Positron alone proves my point: If someone has the badge, they hesitate to change the requirements.

If you want to dispute my conclusions, state which you feel is wrong and why. Don't be insulting and vague.

Which conclusion was "wrong" and why? I explained my standard

"Actually, it isn't a bad standard at all. Without people actively subverting the system, Positron would have looked at the badge requirements sooner."

I can provide the Mentor badges as proof, because within a month of Issue 5's release the mentoring badges were changed. No one had any of that series and they reduced all 3. I know for a fact that there were people that were already farming the damage and healing badges at that time.

I think that the forum rep system should include names of posters to eliminate anonymity. I think that people would think more about their feedback if their name is attached to it.

I think someone is upset that they cannot muster the courage to publically admit they are wrong. Instead they are leaving negative rep to try to drown out the opposing view.

"Too many assumptions being stated as facts", yet when I post backing up my statements, I get "If you could dial your arrogance back to 10, that would be great. (it's on 11 now)"

I wouldn't know. However if I did, I wouldn't be able to tell you because of the Closed Beta Non-Disclosure Agreement. The Positron quote above is in the Public Forums though. You can check the thread to see if Positron answered that question. Otherwise you will have to wait to open beta to find out.

My, how quickly people forget. To refresh your memory, Positron discussed Empath with DJ Jules and Castle on Split Infinity Radio. (Link to the MP3 so you can listen yourself.)
Additionally, Positron and CuppaJo had been interviewed several years ago on City Info Terminal (I'm not sure if Maverick still has it, but it was lost for public access in a server move around 2 years ago) that said the reason that they limited credit to actual healing was that they did not want the badge to be farmed.

So you see I don't need to assume anything here. Positron has said that he has held back badge changes because people have "earned" said badges. You fail.

You are right. I should have said 200 people out of a couple hundred thousand account holders. My mistake in equating characters with people.

Actually, it isn't a bad standard at all. Without people actively subverting the system, Positron would have looked at the badge requirements sooner. He also would not have had the excuse that he was only looking at "preserving the hard work of those who have gotten the badges." They would have data mined the requirements and reduced them to achievable levels. Thanks to those who actively subverted the intentions, that data mining did not happen.

It was never possible to earn the Empath badge without farming. It was never possible to earn the epic damage taken badges without afk farming. Yet the fact that people actually have the badges makes the developers hesitant to change the requirements to values that could be achievable through play.

If I recall correctly, the amount of characters on either CIT or BH with Empath is below 80 (a lot of them the same on both sites). I believe CIT is at 69 verified characters with the Empath badge.

So let us say 200 characters have Empath to take into those driven people that don't use the badge sites. This is out of several million characters. Seems like a fringe activity to me.

Additionally several of those characters belong to the same account holder. I know of one group of characters belonging to one person.

So we have around 200 accounts that want to break the spirit of the rules to get badges. So what? The amount of people with the badge is irrelevant to the question of the ethics involved. It doesn't matter if it was only one person or if it were 10,000 people. The principle is the same: They broke the spirit of the badge requirements.

It is a black or white situation: Did the person get the badge through intended means? Even by your admission they did not.

Following the letter of the rules while ignoring the intent is an ethical choice. But thanks for the ad hominem.

The day job badges are a special exception (as they are designed), they are (in my opinion) poorly designed. I am not the only one that has repeatedly said so since they were introduced in Issue 13. Anyways they are designed as Away From Game badges, unlike the other badges. As such using them as an example that the Developers do not mind AFK badge collecting is a red herring at best. Comparing apples to oranges will not help your position.

How about "fringe", "marginal", or "statistical anomaly". Whatever you want to call it, those that collect badges are a percentage of the main population. Those that bend the rules to the point that they are breaking the spirit of the same rules are a fraction of those who collect badges. A small fraction of a fraction of the population doesn't amount to much.

I did not see the list posted in this thread.

Yes, people that must have the badges as fast as possible should eat more blueberries.

Official answer:
Highlighting mine.

The problem is that the rules and regulations are set out by the developers, not us.

Given past experience, I would say that the "must have it as soon as possible" is a small set of people that collect badges. Perhaps a better wording would have been "most badge collectors" as opposed to "regular players".

Even though badge collecting is a fraction of the player base, most of those that I know of that collect badges would find collecting badges while not playing to be anti-ethical. There is around a dozen players that I know that think otherwise though.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is 50 on the North American servers (I have no basis for comparison for the European servers). Given that there is at least 100,000 accounts on the North American servers, I think I'm right in saying "irregular user".

I think both of you both are missing the point: If you are complaining about the epic healing or damage badges and if they are being reduced, then you are complaining about the amount of time you deliberately "wasted" using an exploit to get a reward with out effort on your part. By AFK farming, you were not playing to get the badges. If you used the arena farms for the healing badges, then you knowingly used a bug in the game to get credit for heals on targets with full health.

I think that anyone who knowing uses an exploit loses all grounds for objections.

I see that you feel that this thread needed more "DOOM".

I think a better way to put your statement is the way people that share your opinion seem to want to use against those that want reasonable requirements: "You want teh badges NAO!"

People that want reasonable badge requirements do not want the badges now, they want to play the game and earn rewards for playing the game. That you and others have subverted that to mean get all the badges "as quick as possible" using whatever means needed to achieve that goal is the fault of the people doing this, not the developers or the regular users.

I detect bitterness. Personally my hope is that past, present, and future requirements are examined and set to be reasonably balanced. That is neither too tough or too easy to earn.

There shouldn't be any insane requirements. Those promote unhealthy play or a rush to exploits.

No, there wasn't any change to empowerment stations that I know of. That was how I got Fabricator.

No. Just no.

You can already find out how long the character has been on patrol just by finding a civilian with a name starting with "M" and clicking on them. You can find out how many times you've logged into the character by finding a civilian with a name starting with "N" and clicking on them.

TL;DR.

The new system, according to Positron, means that if you kill a white con you get the XP appropriate to your level unless you specifically choose not to.

Doesn't work, and hasn't since the beginning of the year. Brainstorm conversions are specifically excluded from counting towards the crafting badges.

Well, I'll not repeat my objections that relate specifically to the Scoop. Those are better handled elsewhere.

That the forum password is the same as the game password is a huge security hole that should receive top priority to be fixed. The password entry page isn't secured, and this would allow malicious users with the technical know-how to take over not only the player's game, but potentially their PlayNC account.

The font size about 1-2 points too small for the web. Readable type on the web should be at least 12 point to reduce eyestrain.

Gradient backgrounds increase illegibility.

Lack of contrast between read and unread posts promotes reader confusion as to which posts are read or not.

Lack of an option to prevent display of all graphics in signatures. As I have an interest in viewing images in posts (layout in the Scoop), I need to be able to see images. However I don't want to see the sometimes full page graphics some users are already using in their sigs by way of the IMG tags. Additionally, even with the forum sig graphics, the images are distracting at best. So having an option to disable all sig graphics while still showing would be an useful option.

Box under avatar: not needed and visually disruptive.

The rainbow-brite smileys are cavity inducing.

The turquoise default/hero scheme makes me sick as it looks like someone got sick on the screen.

The villain scheme is not that much better as the contrast is still bad.

As to the reputation settings, I am completely amazed that this is even an option. Did no one learn from the staring fiascos of threads, the AE ratings system, or the previous attempts at allowing users to rate others? This takes the forum titles that were a cause of division, and makes the situation even worse.

Except I loathe the sig graphics (and img tags in signatures that bypass the limits), yet I have to be able to view images to even attempt to layout the Scoop in a forum friendly manner.

There is no excuse that I've seen that gets around the fact that people should have the ability to say "no" to images (either embedded or as img tags) in signatures.