Stargazer

[ QUOTE ]
And restedXP doesn't really reward someone for being offline. If the person had been online that time earning XP, they would earn a lot more than the person would be making on their bonus. 24 hours for one bar of EXP? It takes me about an hour to earn a bar at level 42 with my primary. The person who is playing those 24 earns a lot more EXP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note also that unless I'm mistaken, one bar of double XP is "only" equivalent to half a bar of "extra" XP.

I still see some possible drawbacks with the double XP though.
(for example, increasing the risk of outleveling content, and act to separate two "synced" characters if they tend to spend different amounts of time in-game (with the difference being spent doing things that do not give XP rewards))

[ QUOTE ]
Nor does your job give you any bonuses for not showing up for a month straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Day Jobs don't give any bonuses for not showing up either.

Both of them give bonuses when you *do* show up for them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Double XP does a level 50 how much good?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite a bit. 50s still accumulate debt, and have to work that debt off before they can gain influence while exemplared down (such as during flashback missions).

Honestly, I think that's obvious enough that it must have been a rhetorical queston.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're quoting the wrong person; I did not say that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, completely irrelevant to what I was saying.
I did not argue that the time requirement was appropriate (or not).

I simply said that your claim that increasing the number of badges but keeping the amount of time required to get all of them would make it easier to stay competitive is wrong.
If you disagree with that, then fine, discuss that, not the price of tea in China.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, see, I was misunderstanding you.

I disagree, in that allowing people to make small but visible steps towards progress in the badge community is better than requiring larger, slower steps. Sure, the end result is that you spent a year off the game, but you have more to show for it, and if nothing else, it feels less detrimental to fall behind because you make progress more quickly.

If you're behind 10 badges for 50 days of off-line credit, then in 5 days you're only behind 9, in 10 days you're only behind 8, and so on.

Since you make more visible progress, it's easier on the psyche. I can't say that this works for 100% of those with a collector mindset, but it should ease the strains on most of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may feel better, but it doesn't make you more competitive.

First, if you've fallen behind due to "extra online time", you will only start catching up if the competition starts spending more time online than you, or if they have already gotten all the badges.

When you start catching up, a larger number of badges/time will increase the rate at which you catch up, but you will still be behind by a larger amount of badges (exception: the very last days where both ways will end up being 1 badge behind).

Example:
1 badge per day vs. 1 badge/10 days

After having spent X time online, you've fallen behind by 20 or 2 badges respectively.
The competition has gained all the badges, so you are catching up.
With the 1/day system you will gain progress faster, but after 10 days you will still be 10 badges behind. With the 1/10day system you would be 1 badge behind at that point.


Basically, if you are disadvantaged by spending "too much" time online, then increasing the badges awarded/time makes you lag the competition by more.

It may feel better, but it doesn't make you more competitive.

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, I have 578 badges. A couple of the ones I'm missing are still within reasonably grasp: MSTF, some consignment sales, the 5th invention, and the last Ouroboros badges.

I could probably grab those all in a reasonably short amount of time if I really pressed them... say maybe 2 weeks?

After that, it's the last pillbox badge, 3 damage badges, and 2 inf badges. Each of those is a SUBSTANTIAL time requirement--we're talking months of effort, not days or weeks.

And there are others who have completed most of those already and are down to maybe one or two left.

So can you see how maybe adding in 12+ more badges that take a minimum of 1 month each to "earn" by NOT playing the badge character might be considered a slap in the face?

I'm not asking you to say that it's right. I don't care if you collect badges or not. In fact, I've been told (today) that I'm "sick" for my obsessive-compulsive gaming habits, specifically those involving badges.

All I'm asking is, try to see things from our point of view.

(Not mine specifically, because I want Day Jobs taken out back and shot in the head execution style, then doused in gasoline and burned, then have its ashes sent back to the marketting department as a warning to stop trying this baited hook B.S. to keep people paying by giving them crap for not playing. )

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, completely irrelevant to what I was saying.
I did not argue that the time requirement was appropriate (or not).

I simply said that your claim that increasing the number of badges but keeping the amount of time required to get all of them would make it easier to stay competitive is wrong.
If you disagree with that, then fine, discuss that, not the price of tea in China.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And as for your other comment, about making 73 badges that take 5 days each? You'd hear a lot fewer complaints about that, because it's a time vs. reward equation.

73 rewards in a year > 12 rewards in a year

You get visible progress faster, and [color= orange]you can stay competitive with the rest of the badge community even if you want to play your badger here and there. Adding 4 hours to 120 still leaves a smaller lag than adding 4 hours to 720[/color].

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehm, no.
You'd fall further behind.

Let's say that it's 10 or 100 rewards instead (for easier examples).
By the time you're 1 badge behind in the 10 badge system, you would be 10 badges behind in the 100 badge system. The gap between you and the really really hard core would increase.

A gap of one badge is easier to make up for with other badges than a gap of 10 badges is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Say you're in a prison (because let's face it: as an OCD gamer, that's pretty much what badges are to me at this point).

The warden gives you a choice between two options:

1) You can have 6 decent-sized meals a month, one every 5 days.
2) You can have a feast every 30 days.

(Also, every 2 meals you eat comes with a dessert to help tide you over to the next meal.)

You could manage to survive only eating a good meal once every 5 days. But how long would it take before you and the other prisoners (badgers) died out completely waiting for the thirty day feasts?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not a relevant example.

Will you get more frequent gratification (or nutrition)? Sure.
But that's not what I was talking about, and not the only thing you [color= orange]claimed[/color].

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, then say you had free time (were playing) for 4 hours. The warden doesn't count time spent outside your cell towards the time between your meals.

Waiting 5 days and 4 hours to eat is still a helluva lot better than waiting 30 days and 4 hours.

You might miss out on a few meals that the more dedicated prisoners eat without you, but since you're waiting less time in between meals, it doesn't mean as much.

(Going by badges again, if you lag behind by 10 badges at 5 days per badge, as was the previous argument, that's 50 days--less than 2 months. That means being behind 10 badges on a 5 day scale is still better off than being behind 2 badges on the current 30 day scale.)

And FYI, if we have to have this at all (and apparently we do), I'm for a 10-15 day scale, leaning towards 14 days (2 weeks). 4-6 months to get 12 badges, as opposed to the currently proposed year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still not relevant.

I'm not arguing that the time between badges (meals) would be shorter with more badges awarded in the same time. Of course it would be.

What I am saying is wrong is your claim that
[ QUOTE ]
you can stay competitive with the rest of the badge community even if you want to play your badger here and there. Adding 4 hours to 120 still leaves a smaller lag than adding 4 hours to 720

[/ QUOTE ]
(highlighted in orange above)

For a given amount of "away-time", increasing the number of badges awarded in a given amount of time would make you fall behind by a greater absolute amount of badges.

At best you could say that even if you increase the number of badges / time, you'd still be behind (approximately) the same relative amount of Day Job Badges (i.e. you're behind by 10% both if you have 9/10 or 90/100 badges), but Day Job Badges are not the only badges there are. There are over 500 *other* badges, and the number of Day Job badges is small in comparison to this number. It is thus not meaningful to compare your overall standing compared to other badge hunters by the fraction of Day Job badges you have. You have to compare the total amount of badges (absolute or relative) to their total amount of badges, and for both absolute and relative you would fall further behind the more badges/time are awarded by Day Jobs (given a larger amount of non-eligible time for you than for them).


Again, I'm not contesting that increasing the number of badges/time would increase your visible progress.
I am saying that you are wrong in claiming that increasing the number of badges/time would help someone with more non-eligible time stay competitive with the rest of the badge community (assuming that the rest has less non-eligible time).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And as for your other comment, about making 73 badges that take 5 days each? You'd hear a lot fewer complaints about that, because it's a time vs. reward equation.

73 rewards in a year > 12 rewards in a year

You get visible progress faster, and [color= orange]you can stay competitive with the rest of the badge community even if you want to play your badger here and there. Adding 4 hours to 120 still leaves a smaller lag than adding 4 hours to 720[/color].

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehm, no.
You'd fall further behind.

Let's say that it's 10 or 100 rewards instead (for easier examples).
By the time you're 1 badge behind in the 10 badge system, you would be 10 badges behind in the 100 badge system. The gap between you and the really really hard core would increase.

A gap of one badge is easier to make up for with other badges than a gap of 10 badges is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Say you're in a prison (because let's face it: as an OCD gamer, that's pretty much what badges are to me at this point).

The warden gives you a choice between two options:

1) You can have 6 decent-sized meals a month, one every 5 days.
2) You can have a feast every 30 days.

(Also, every 2 meals you eat comes with a dessert to help tide you over to the next meal.)

You could manage to survive only eating a good meal once every 5 days. But how long would it take before you and the other prisoners (badgers) died out completely waiting for the thirty day feasts?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not a relevant example.

Will you get more frequent gratification (or nutrition)? Sure.
But that's not what I was talking about, and not the only thing you [color= orange]claimed[/color].

[ QUOTE ]
OK, let's say the time to get the badge was dropped to 5 days. But let's say there are 73 day jobs and 73 badges possible. That would still mean a full year for one character to get all 73 badges. Are you badgers going to ruin things for the rest of us who'd like to see a wide variety of day jobs, but the devs can't do that because it would upset impatient badgers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if they were to separate the Day Job system from the Badge system, increasing the number of Day Jobs wouldn't get any complaints from the "Badge people".

There are reasons for and against that though...

[ QUOTE ]
And as for your other comment, about making 73 badges that take 5 days each? You'd hear a lot fewer complaints about that, because it's a time vs. reward equation.

73 rewards in a year > 12 rewards in a year

You get visible progress faster, and you can stay competitive with the rest of the badge community even if you want to play your badger here and there. Adding 4 hours to 120 still leaves a smaller lag than adding 4 hours to 720.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehm, no.
You'd fall further behind.

Let's say that it's 10 or 100 rewards instead (for easier examples).
By the time you're 1 badge behind in the 10 badge system, you would be 10 badges behind in the 100 badge system. The gap between you and the really really hard core would increase.

A gap of one badge is easier to make up for with other badges than a gap of 10 badges is.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why didn't you cap it at a max 8 hours of off-line time per 24 hours or real time? This would allow people to play their characters, yet get the awards at the same time as everyone else.

<snip>

Why not cap being on patrol at another 8 hours per diem? This combined with the day jobs capped lets players play a total of 8 hours without interfering with the reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

The system essentially
a) encourages people to play alts
b) give more "casual" players (players who don't spend as much time in-game) a bit of an edge compared to more dedicated players. (edit: given that they divide their time among a similar number of characters, and that number is not sufficiently high to allow the player with more in-game time to play in a permanently "buffed" state)

Your proposed limits would essentially nullify both of those things, which if any of those things were intended (which seems very possible given how the system is designed) would be contrary to the design of the system.

Simply put, it doesn't seem like the system is intended to give every character the awards at the same rate regardless of how much they are played.


[/ QUOTE ]
a) We already have more than enough encouragement to play alts.
b) Casual and dedicated players should be equal in this respect, and neither one given an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]


Says you.
The system does not seem to be designed with that intent.

As an example, let's just look at the Patrol double-XP. If the intent was to give every character the exact same benefit, then why not just universally boost XP gain instead?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why the fudge 30 days? Given that an in game day is 30 minutes, that means if you have to spend 720 hours off-line your character has "worked" 1,440 hours to get a single badge. I'm a fan of "nice round numbers", but yikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how that's relevant. 30 days was likely chosen because it was deemed to be an appropriate real-time "investment" for the rewards in question (or at least a good starting point). It can be debated if 30 days really is appropriate, but I strongly doubt that the number of "in-game days" was ever considered, nor do I feel that it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why compare the offline-time required to get a badge to the online-time spent getting to 50?
I could see why someone might be interested in comparing it to the off-line time (time since creation - online-time) an average character spends before getting to 50, but why would a comparison to online-time be interesting?

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell that to nearly anyone on Virtue. The Role-Play factor is something that might need to be addressed as this is essentially a Role-Play award.

[/ QUOTE ]

As important as concept can be, not every game mechanic introduced can fit 100% with every individual RP concept.

For 100% fidelity, the amount of time required for the badges would also have to vary from badge to badge. Becoming an intern doesn't take quite as long as becoming a professor, does it?

Simplicity and "investments" that are in some way proportionate to the rewards would seem to take priority in this case.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Double XP does a level 50 how much good?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it doesn't do any good, would that be a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]
A reward that isn't a reward is a problem. A big one.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if it's not intended to give a reward to level 50s?
Must all rewards apply to all characters?

[ QUOTE ]
Double XP for 'being on patrol'.....

I'm probably the only one who doesn't care for double XP. I'm glad that with Ouroborus we can work on the missions that the characters may end up missing out of when Double XP events happen.

But this will make things more chronic for those who want revisit characters they haven't played in a while.

If there are future Double XP weekends, does that mean those who are 'On Patrol' will earn quadruple the amount of XP?

I like being able to max out the bar for contacts, but with all of this extra XP I'd be lucky to be able to get to be able to call in for missions in CoH before having to move on to the next contact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. People will be more likely to miss content they may want to run through (something they in some cases can remedy through Oroborous, but that's not always ideal).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The whole system would seem to lose it's meaning pretty fast if it would take a relatively short amount of time to complete every job.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sigh, you missed the point as well.

720 hours of play is more than enough time to get to level 50. 240 hours for 2 hours of bonus seems a bit off too.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why compare the offline-time required to get a badge to the online-time spent getting to 50?
I could see why someone might be interested in comparing it to the off-line time (time since creation - online-time) an average character spends before getting to 50, but why would a comparison to online-time be interesting?

[ QUOTE ]
Why didn't you cap it at a max 8 hours of off-line time per 24 hours or real time? This would allow people to play their characters, yet get the awards at the same time as everyone else.

<snip>

Why not cap being on patrol at another 8 hours per diem? This combined with the day jobs capped lets players play a total of 8 hours without interfering with the reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

The system essentially
a) encourages people to play alts
b) give more "casual" players (players who don't spend as much time in-game) a bit of an edge compared to more dedicated players. (edit: given that they divide their time among a similar number of characters, and that number is not sufficiently high to allow the player with more in-game time to play in a permanently "buffed" state)

Your proposed limits would essentially nullify both of those things, which if any of those things were intended (which seems very possible given how the system is designed) would be contrary to the design of the system.

Simply put, it doesn't seem like the system is intended to give every character the awards at the same rate regardless of how much they are played.



[ QUOTE ]
Why the fudge 30 days? Given that an in game day is 30 minutes, that means if you have to spend 720 hours off-line your character has "worked" 1,440 hours to get a single badge. I'm a fan of "nice round numbers", but yikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how that's relevant. 30 days was likely chosen because it was deemed to be an appropriate real-time "investment"
for the rewards in question (or at least a good starting point). It can be debated if 30 days really is appropriate, but I strongly doubt that the number of "in-game days" was ever considered, nor do I feel that it should be.


[ QUOTE ]
Double XP does a level 50 how much good?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it doesn't do any good, would that be a problem?

I'm cautiously optimistic.
The most obvious pitfalls I could imagine for a system like this seem to have been avoided (though it's hard to tell for sure without all the details), and it seems amusing enough.

I'm curious, how does the double-XP work with the Leveling Pacts?
I'm assuming that the XP will be split, but will you gain double-XP for a certain number of points, or until you reach a certain amount of XP (in which case you'd effectively get double-XP for a longer period of time if you're in a Leveling Pact)?

[ QUOTE ]
Did the podcast discuss Water Spout?

I love it and I take it on most of my Dominators. It is my favorite villain power, even over the non-patron powers. One of my Dominators has his entire character concept hinged on it (elementalist: Earth/Fire/Water). PLEASE PLEASE let Water Spout survive in tact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, not unless it completely slipped my mind somehow. And I think I would have remembered it since my Dom also has it.


[ QUOTE ]
/All Hail Mako

[/ QUOTE ]

Mako, our chum.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope this also means the To Hit buff on FA is being adjusted. It would be pretty silly if the To Hit buff on the Scrapper APP Targeting Drone ended up higher than the Blaster Secondary Targeting Drone. It's already pretty silly that FA provides a better buff than the comparable Secondary power. At APP levels FA's greater End cost isn't that hard to mitigate. See: toggle Instant Healing and the reason it was changed to a click power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those powers use the Melee_Buff_ToHit modifier, and Scrappers have a higher modifier than Blasters (0.1 compared to 0.075), so given identical powers, the Scrapper version will give a larger buff than the Stalker version.

FA does give a stronger ToHit buff though (scale 2.0 compared to scale 1.85), but pays for this by having 3.75 times higher End Cost.

While it could be debated if that bonus (higher scale value) is appropriate, I do not think that it should be expected that Targeting Drone in a Scrapper Epic would not give a higher effective ToHit buff than Targeting Drone in a Blaster secondary.
The attribute modifiers state that Scrappers are *supposed* to be better at (self) ToHit buffs than Blasters.


This can also be seen in other situations.
Scrapper/Invulnerability/Temporary Invulnerability and Defender/Power Mastery/Temporary Invulnerability are both scale 3.0, but since these powers use the Melee_Res_Dmg modifier, for which Defenders have a value of 0.1 and Scrappers 0.075, the Defender version gives a higher effective Resistance, 30% compared to 22.5%.
It's just the way things work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware of why an otherwise identical power on two different ATs can perform differently. Nevertheless, the result can still be silly even if its consistent with how the game engine works. Ask a Storm/ Defender about /Storm Controllers sometime.

FA is a separate case though, since it was invented specifically for the APPs and its buff value was apparently pulled out of thin air. There was little reason to set the base value of the power as high as it was to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, it could be debated if FA should get the higher scale value, but that's different from saying that a Scrapper Targeting Drone should not give a higher ToHit buff than a Blaster Targeting Drone.
I see no specific reason for why it shouldn't.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


2) I misspoke re: Weapon Mastery getting Focused Accuracy. It's Targeting Drone. Functionally, it's *identical* to FA, it just has the visuals and display name of TD.



[/ QUOTE ]

I hope this also means the To Hit buff on FA is being adjusted. It would be pretty silly if the To Hit buff on the Scrapper APP Targeting Drone ended up higher than the Blaster Secondary Targeting Drone. It's already pretty silly that FA provides a better buff than the comparable Secondary power. At APP levels FA's greater End cost isn't that hard to mitigate. See: toggle Instant Healing and the reason it was changed to a click power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those powers use the Melee_Buff_ToHit modifier, and Scrappers have a higher modifier than Blasters (0.1 compared to 0.075), so given identical powers, the Scrapper version will give a larger buff than the Stalker version.

FA does give a stronger ToHit buff though (scale 2.0 compared to scale 1.85), but pays for this by having 3.75 times higher End Cost.

While it could be debated if that bonus (higher scale value) is appropriate, I do not think that it should be expected that Targeting Drone in a Scrapper Epic would not give a higher effective ToHit buff than Targeting Drone in a Blaster secondary.
The attribute modifiers state that Scrappers are *supposed* to be better at (self) ToHit buffs than Blasters.


This can also be seen in other situations.
Scrapper/Invulnerability/Temporary Invulnerability and Defender/Power Mastery/Temporary Invulnerability are both scale 3.0, but since these powers use the Melee_Res_Dmg modifier, for which Defenders have a value of 0.1 and Scrappers 0.075, the Defender version gives a higher effective Resistance, 30% compared to 22.5%.
It's just the way things work.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can only buy it if your faction has control of the zone in sirens - and you only get 5. In the arena, having perma webnades is a huge advantace.

I would personally drop Trops or Shuriken instead of webnade

[/ QUOTE ]

Would having Web Grenade and a Focused Accuracy clone in the same Epic set be a good idea?
Wouldn't that become an extremely potent set for PvP?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that really depends on what the PvP changes are. It might be for current PvP, but it's still on a melee AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, the PvP changes might change things drastically.

[ QUOTE ]
3. What is suppressed during a mez: Anything that is not a status protection will get suppressed. Exception: Kheldian flight will still fly, but speed is suppressed. Kheldian forms don't drop. Suppressed team buffs are suppressed for teammates.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, I just listened to this.

Castle: "There are some exceptions to that, like if you're in Nova form your flight won't get surpressed. Your fly speed does, but you will still stay hanging in the air, you just can't move.

Question: "Now is that true for regular Fly for other characters?"

Castle: "That is true for Combat Flight, but I don't think it's true for Flight".

While he could certainly be referring to only the Kheldian Combat Flight power here, it's worth noting that the internal name for Hover is also Combat Flight, so it is possible that he's also talking about Hover.

[ QUOTE ]
You can only buy it if your faction has control of the zone in sirens - and you only get 5. In the arena, having perma webnades is a huge advantace.

I would personally drop Trops or Shuriken instead of webnade

[/ QUOTE ]

Would having Web Grenade and a Focused Accuracy clone in the same Epic set be a good idea?
Wouldn't that become an extremely potent set for PvP?

[ QUOTE ]
A). Patrons SUCK compared to hero epics- it's FACT.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not unequivocally true.
There are certainly cases where some Epic power pools offer a distinct advantage (such as Focused Accuracy vs. Defense in PvP), but there are also cases where the Patron power pools have an advantage. For instance, I have Brutes that would much prefer the current single target attack + AoE to having access to Focused Accuracy. Body Mastery also offers single target attack + AoE, but Lightning Beam Eyes has significantly lower DPA than the Mu Mastery/Soul Mastery counterparts, and there are cases where a Targeted AoE is much preferable to a Cone. For people interested in the attacks, Body Mastery also requires a prerequisite. This isn't a problem for those that also want Focused Accuracy (or Conserve Power), but for some it adds up to being too high of a cost.

I also have squishies that only want the Epic Resistance/Defense toggle, and while the Villain squishies are free to only take that power, the Hero squishies have to take a prereq, which sometimes ends up being a power with very limited usefulness for them.


Also, even in the cases where the Hero Epics end up having a distinct advantage (Focused Accuracy, Power Build Up, ...), it is often the case that there is one single Epic pool that has this advantage, not only over the villain Patron pools, but also over all other Hero Epics. Basically, it is often not the case that "all Hero Epics are better than all Villain Patron pools", but rather that "there exists some Hero Epics that are better than all other (Hero + Villain) Epics" (for some specific situations).

[ QUOTE ]
Focused Accuracy just needs completely removed, along with powerboosts granting of additional ToHit, same goes for fort

Suddenly, defense would become VERY viable in pvp since FA and ToHit Stacking completely negates sets like /SR and /EA A lot in pvp, especially for brutes

[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't surprise me if Focused Accuracy (and some similar powers) gets at least partially converted to Accuracy for PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
What happens to enhancements in these cases? Do they remain but not function or do they evaporate?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess would be that they remain slotted, and function as they would if slotted into the new power (or not, as the case might be. If a damage dealing power is changed into Focused Accuracy, Recharge and EndRdx enhancements in it would continue to work, but Damage enhancements would do nothing).

Hopefully this will be taken into consideration, and possibly troublesome changes will be avoided.
Changing a power that takes a damage set into a power that takes another damage set could for instance be troublesome...

Since this will potentially affect a lot of characters, it is also possible that they choose to run some script to remove offending enhancements.

[ QUOTE ]
Way to make VEATs/HEATs even less popular!

Recharge modifer resists work both ways, remember? That's why Winter's Gift went from being "yay" to being "omg sucks".

New VEAT/HEAT change: for every VEAT/HEAT on your team, your VEAT/HEAT loses a percentage of their recharge reductions. The -50% recharge time you worked hard to build up on your character form slotting purple sets? Gone, unless you kick the VEATs/HEATs off your team.



[/ QUOTE ]

Recharge Resistance only works on resistable Recharge (de)buffs. Recharge *buffs* are essentially always unresistable, and will thus not generally be resisted. The only resistable Recharge *buff* I can think of is the Force Feedback proc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They all got looked at by Posi, Castle, [u]and minion. [u]

[/ QUOTE ]

Poor nameless minion. I hope he gets promoted to a named Lt. at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they should be called "Pawns".