UberGuy

This speculation has been shown untrue several times now.

Very annoying. Came here to see if other people had run into it.

It's very consistent for me. I tried fiddling with the power and can't get it to not do this.

While people will argue about nearly anything in a forum, it's not automatic that other readers will find value in either side of the argument. As I pointed out, I'll post about lots of things if I see something I disagree with, but to make help make the point matter to anyone, I find it's useful to point out why I think it's worth disagreeing about other than just to disagree.

That reason in this case was the sense of implied dismissal of the (sometimes quite time consuming) work folks had done in that drop rates thread. As I mentioned, I found that offensive, though certainly only in a "hey, that isn't very nice" kind of way. For better or worse, though, people remember that sort of thing. The sentence about that being foolish was to stress that point, and help explain why I'm bothering to correct something that's on a topic that's already water under the bridge. After all, he did change his mind, and the real problem is already fixed.

I actually intentionally worded it mildly by my standards. I suppose, looking at it, I can see it seeming a strong negative thing to say. Hopefully you now have a better sense of why I said it.

This is such a good point, I felt compelled to expand on it.

There are several things I can think of that we think cause people to bid primarily on the max level recipes, whatever that max is. One significant reason is that supply tends to be strongest at level maxes because that's what things like Merits and Tickets give you if you are over the level max. Greater supply means more listings/day, which means you'll get it faster.

As always, patience pays off. Because so many people focus on the max-level recipes, people who actually sell lower-level ones may end up listing them at bargain prices compared to max level just so they'll move. If you wait for a lower-level one to show up, you can often get it at a fraction of the price. Yet if you buy within a few levels of the max you only lose a percentage point or two of enhancement.

Many times now I have gotten, say, a level 50 drop, (usually) crafted and sold it and then bought a level 45-49 version for 20% of what I got for the level 50.

Now certainly level 50 has a lot more action than, say, level 35, so doing what I described down there takes more patience, especially on the Black Market. But the principle still applies.

What it matters at this point is that someone is selling that happened as something I think it wasn't. I always disagree with that on principle, on any subject, and will post to try and make clear what I think actually happened.

This has nothing to do with ragging on Synapse. I may think his mistake was rather severe in terms of both logic and public relations, but I still think it was just a mistake, and probably a completely honest one. That's not going to stop me from correcting people who mince words to make it look like it wasn't a mistake, even they're doing it simply out of ignorance of the context in which Synapse posted what he said.

I am guessing they may not have an easy way to make those two interact. Think about the mission difficulty settings. They are per-leader, and per mission. If the devs base Mo* badge eligability on whether you do the TF on -1 or not, do they track every mission to make sure you don't just change it at the end? Do they have a place they can track that right now, regardless of whether the leader changes during the TF? If not, they'll need to add it, and that will likely take code and probably database table changes. (After all, TF status is persistent, so it needs to be stored somewhere.)

They could try to enforce that "Master Of" prevents you from going down to -1 foes, but remember that there isn't actually a "Master Of" setting, per se. It's a couple of different settings on the TF start options. They might be able to check those both and somehow enforce that -1 becomes +0, but they also might not have any code for allowing those two things to interact. So they would have to add that.

So I think that while your idea makes a great deal of sense, it may not be as simple to implement as it seems at first consideration. If it was, they probably wouldn't have put in this half-measure instead.

BS/Invul Scrapper. He's what I consider my "main", primarily because I really like the back-story I came up with for him, but he's also still a lot of fun for me to play.

Dark/Dark Defender. Probably my most played character, and probably the one that feels most like I'm cheating when I play most of the time.

DM/Regen Scrapper. Created back when Regen was one of the only Scrapper defense powersets with a mez protection toggle with no strings attached. It also turned out to be a wonderfully broken powerset. Well, I thought it was wonderful while I played it. I still really enjoy it, and Regen remains probably my favorite defensive powerset mostly because of how engaged you need to be to use it really well.

My very original character is a Katana/SR Scrapper. I still have him. He's still level 30. Unfortunately, for a very long time SR was so comparatively gimp to the other two Scrappers I made that they got most of my playtime and a lot of my emotional investment. I keep him out of a combination of sentimental attachment to his being my original and the knowledge that his powersets are actually quite good these days. Someday I hope to get around to him again.

I have numerous villains also, and actually play them more than my heroes. But villains don't feel old-school enough for this topic, so I stuck with my heroes. The 1st two listed predate Issue 1, and the 3rd predated Issue 2 by only a few days. My Kat/SR is from pre-release.

I'm not sure how you can spin that in that way and expect anyone to accept it.

He absolutely called it a perception issue. He simply left open the possibility that he might change his mind later.

This was, frankly, offensive given that he posted that after literally dozens of other posts with hard, qualitative data that suggested with extremely high probability (in the literal sense of that phrase) that the effect was real and not simply perceived. It very much gave the impression that he had either not read those posts or had only skimmed them so briefly that he was unaware of the data posted, and the fairly active cross-checking posters had been doing of one another's data gathering.

That he should even conditionally describe something as a matter of perception which already had that much empirical data behind it was foolish, in my opinion.

You are aware that the new I16 settings allow +3 and +4 settings which never existed before, right?

If you check the the rest of my post, I acknowledge that they exist, but I find them a tiny few. I do not believe it is reasonable or valuable to cater to the whims of every segment of the playerbase, no matter how small.

I have seen people posting what you're saying. They are usually soloing some of either the poorest soloing combinations or very poor builds, or both. There is basically nothing in this game you cannot defeat solo on Heroic with some inspirations. While I don't object to people having the option of playing at -1, I do object to the notion that they actually require it to succeed. Given that, I further object to the availability of that option restricting options that nearly everyone else uses at some point or other.

You guys could probably have save a lot of angst by getting that word out a bit earlier. That's not so much a complaint as an observation. Hopefully a superfluous one in the sense that you guys realize that.

In any case, I'm pleased that you do intend to re-enable higher difficulty in some fashion.

I was going to suggest this also.

This.