Another_Fan
-
Posts
3571 -
Joined
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Vyver
slotting enhancementsThose are good. Here's a few more.Quote:Originally Posted by Mr. NoPants
Training Origin Enhancements.
- Lack of IO availability for leveling up characters
- Getting enhancements whose set bonuses worked over a reasonable level range
- The Respec System
- Watching the devs play cutesy pie and say "Oh you don't like how these work ?" $100+/character fixes that
-
Quote:So your blasters that need a small luck to function at the top end are objectively worse than scrappers, stalkers and brutes that don't need the insp ?Originally Posted by TwoHeadedBoy
I felt that the whole idea of fun was silly and illogical because it was brought up in the context of a conversation about build mechanics.
If you showed me your costume in game, or we teamed together and enjoyed each other's company, it'd be a completely different story. But this part of the forums, and the part of the conversation I intended to engage in, was about game mechanics, which are the most important and enjoyable part of this game to me. -
Quote:We really could have used free form creation its a shame that it got killed in the cradleOriginally Posted by mammalian
My thoughts on CO so far...
I like the character creator and powers, made a perfect Batman free form toon with good close up melee and expolding granades, something unavailable in CoX. -
Quote:The problem with GG wasn't that she was talking out of her backside, it's that she was right about the devs putting in so many things that so few people liked. The endless proliferation of Itrials was one that was really bothersome. It was like having an impossibly cheerful nurse explain your prostate surgery to you.Originally Posted by FloatingFatMan
She's probably talking out of her backside, like usual.
-
Quote:You can go the other route and go more sandbox and let player actions drive the game, It looked like there was a faction ? (maybe maybe not) in PS that was interested in that, things like the phasing tech and the AE pointed that way on the other hand they may have just been stealing features from other games.Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
Eh. There's always that risk, but other people might see it as PS coming in and refurbishing their toys; that's certainly how I felt about ED, especially when IOs came out. Changing things might drive people away; stagnation certainly will.
(And unfortunately we couldn't have really had, say, IOs without ED. There should always have been diminishing returns in Enhancements. The PvP changes were very poorly handled, but I remember the PvP environment prior to i13, too. It wasn't nearly the noble jousting folks seem to remember.) -
Quote:Not that kind of wargame, historical or the old avalon hill book shelf style games. But we are talking about monetization vs gameplay.Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
Very different environment. Wargames run on unit mini sales. When they want to drive up interest, they release a new faction or a single new mechanic and propagate it to new units for the existing factions. Up until recently, balance changes were slow and people mostly just learned to play around whatever was broken. The closest MOG (multiplayer online game) equivalent would be something like League of Legends, although obviously the player skill-set is very very different.
I always felt that high handed actions were more likely to drive people away, especially when it's not the first time. Someone described it as having PS come in and break their toys.Quote:MMOs live and die on keeping people playing on a day-to-day basis; there's much less of the 'collectability' aspect. The genius of CoH was the powerset system (even though it was an accident and not what they were going for at all), since it made the game extremely replayable. The things that really helped the game synergized well with this (new ATs with Villains, new powersets here and there and a glut of them recently, and of course new content to level characters with) and the things that hurt it weakened this. (AE was a weird case, because on paper it should've been great for replayability, but it was too much when it launched. DFB and DiB really hit a much sweeter spot for that, but AE was hurt really badly by its rough launch.)
Balance changes push people into replaying or re-evaluating their characters/options. Every MMO uses them this way. They all have those things you were complaining about. -
Quote:Mostly a wargamer. TBH, I always thought what passed for balance here, escaped from the twilight zone.Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
You don't play many MMOs, do you.
-
Quote:I don't know, I can think of lots things Paragon Studios did that alienated players. Balance passes that wrecked characters, features that had promised improvements that were NEVER, NEVER going to arrive, failure to actively or at least meaningfully respond to the declining game population. I don't know if I can say "Yes there is the game killer" about any one of those but I am pretty sure it wasn't just poor marketing. On the player side I still see things that are being taken as articles of faith, The game was net profitable ? coin toss there. That the direction the devs were going was improving the game ? (Combo systems, ever increasing power creep, minimal effort to advance characters but heavily time gated) I really saw those as appealing to a particular subset of the existing audience.Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
He's basically saying that market neglect on the part of Paragon Studios killed the game, Bill. I think we can see some evidence that they saw a weakness there; through June/July/August they were definitely trying some new strategies to drive up player interest.
But as far as I can tell they had basically zero budget to run any kind of ad campaign and I'm not sure anybody ever figured out what (demographic) opportunities we had for growth. Our biggest market was the thirty-and-up crowd, and that's a broad wall to paint. I don't think neglect killed the game, and I certainly don't believe that people like Zwillinger or Black Pebble lacked enthusiasm for it.
As UberGuy has also said, there's nothing there that hasn't been discussed already, either. So two counts -- neither undiscussed nor real. I'll leave 'obvious' uncontested. -
Quote:Not trying to provoke you in any way shape or form, but I never understood just what it was you wanted for tanks.Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
I don't give up easily. If there is one person on these forums who knows about the relentless pursuit of the impossible, about bull-headed cussedness, I dare to say it's me.
After I18 and the later scrapper changes you had a spectrum on melee survivability Stalkers least survivable highest ST DPS, to Tanks with most survivability and lowest damage. I can see and understand if you had a main that you were attached to and didn't want to reroll as a brute. Granted, the devs never got the legal concept of "Being Made Whole" when they fixed things. Other than it always seemed like a taste thing. Well that and bruise seemed like one more Castleism, should of at least been the T1 and T2 seeing as it didn't stack from the same caster. -
Quote:MuttersOriginally Posted by ebon3
Just taking this at face value but are you suggesting we have evolved ina relatively short time to the point where humans are completely reliant on technology to survive?
no anything that stops electricity from happening is going to instantly kill everything everywhere it affects. Electricity isn't primarily electrons traveling through wires. It's the action of the electric force through a wave guide on the electrons in the conductor. To stop electricity you have to stop the electric force from affecting electrons. Electrons actually travel very slowly in conductors the speed is in feet per second its the force that makes it through quickly.
DEAD DEAD EVERYTHING DEAD IN MANY MANY WAYS.
Let me put to you like this if you want a weapon deadlier than anything you have ever conceived of take a penny and nullify the charge on or just spontaneously convert all the protons into neutrons. The potential energy release will kill everything a few solar systems over. -
Quote:Got it.Originally Posted by GadgetDon
The problem isn't "oh no, we can't use anything electronic", it's "what's the impact on living things if some sort of field is operating that stops anything from a one-cell flashlight to a hydro-electric plant".
Didn't think I would have to explain that changing basic physical processes would kill everything on the planet. -
No electrical devices work anywhere on the planet but human life still manages ?
Little hard to work past. -
Quote:*Golf Clap* I laughed should have been doing that to him/her for years.Originally Posted by B_L_Angel
Sad. But expected, I suppose you would like me to say something equally insulting to you ?
I get what you are saying., let me make a counter argument. Blasters are for some reason or another the most popular AT pick at creation. Making the not necessarily justified assumption that this implies more people start making blasters than any other shouldn't either A) The at represent the broader tastes of the game playing populace or B) There should be a more honest assessment of the AT when people create it so less experienced players don't play it.Quote:Originally Posted by B_L_Angel
Habanero peppers aren't for everyone.
I'd like to reply to the rest of your post but it's pretty much you saying things about how other people play. -
Quote:Someone else latched onto this.Originally Posted by gameboy1234
*groan*
-
Quote:Two Words.Originally Posted by Ironik
I'm all for free speech. Free speech includes the right to be wrong.
It also means I get to disagree with someone who is being a bigot. I believe in equality for everyone. No exceptions. Card believes in the violent overthrow of a government that allows gay marriage.
I hope that clears up who is on the side of truth, justice and the American way.
Ezra Pound. -
Quote:Originally Posted by BellaStrega
I personally do not care if my character is the most powerful or not. That's not what grants me enjoyment in CoH. What does is having characters who can solo reasonably well and who can contribute measurably on teams. However, not all of them will be able to solo to the same degree of efficiency, nor will all of them be able to contribute the same amount on teams, and these two things do not correlate directly to each other.
At the level of performance it seems most people play at, most missions get rolled over very quickly and efficiently with few defeats. In that context, your build's solo performance is not really all that relevant, and on a team you're contributing to make rolling slightly faster than otherwise. Or, that is, not a sufficient improvement to really justify any claim of superiority.
If you have fun with the way you play, more power to you. But just because you rely on numerical and statistical performance for fun does not make your preference inherently more rational or logical. It does not make your playstyle superior. It does not demonstrate that other playstyles are pointless, especially as fun as a goal in and of itself is a perfectly rational and logical goal, and automatically means that goals other than your own automatically have a point and are automatically reasonable.Quote:Originally Posted by Another_Fan
I am sorry but if everybody is satisfied, that is the ultimate reason not to make a change. Even though I was painfully aware of the problems with my blasters and their shortcomings relative to other ATs. I have no idea what the relative sizes of the (Happy but like a buff) vs (Happy and don't dare change it) groups were. The problem group were the (Want something like this but this really isnt it) group.Quote:Originally Posted by BellaStrega
What does "everybody is satisfied" have to do with anything? The problem wasn't in terms of which groups were represented on the forum, the problem was that blasters were the least played and most abandoned AT, that they died more often than other ATs, and took longer to reach level 50 than other ATs.
You're coming out of left field in these responses and I don't see what the connection is. I certainly never said that "everybody is satisfied." All I said was that TwoHeadedBoy's metric for fun was neither objective nor the only rational way to play the game.
Actually, my post had nothing to do with changing anything. It was strictly about THB saying that there's only one logical way to play CoH (his way) and that another way was pointless and illogical. I was trying to explain why this is wrong. You've taken this argument to an extreme interpretation that is not a logical progression from what I posted, and I have no idea why you would want to do that.
From my viewpoint the only reason to buff a class/at is that it is incapable of performing up to the same level as the rest of the game. This thread demonstrates that there is no universal performance point that people find enjoyable. So if you are going to use enjoyability you have nothing. -
Quote:Didn't register.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Bus Control was too interruptible.
Yeah, I went there. -
Quote:An individuals enjoyment of anything is going to rather hard to quantify, well unless you have them in a FMRI.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I suppose everything is quantifiable if in no other sense than the amount of FTEs it took to implement or the number of options the game presents of that category. But what I meant was that the enjoyment of customization itself wasn't quantifiable, contrasting the poster in question who was arguing that enjoying performance is quantifiable by using the performance numbers themselves as a proxy for quantifying enjoyment. That, I believe, is nonsensical.
-
Quote:I am sorry but if everybody is satisfied, that is the ultimate reason not to make a change. Even though I was painfully aware of the problems with my blasters and their shortcomings relative to other ATs. I have no idea what the relative sizes of the (Happy but like a buff) vs (Happy and don't dare change it) groups were. The problem group were the (Want something like this but this really isnt it) group.Originally Posted by BellaStrega
^^^ This. The logical conclusion of my argument is not that balance is unnecessary. The logical conclusion is that if you're having fun, you have a logical, rational, pointful explanation as to why you enjoy the game.
I may have liked my Peacebringer fine prior to the buffs, but the buffs were necessary to balance Peacebringers with other ATs. Many people in this thread may enjoy their blasters just fine, but the buffs were necessary because the AT as a whole was suffering and this was statistically and empirically demonstrable even if individuals could manage consistently high performance. -
I'd say short NCsoft but you may be too late. 52 week high 380,000 won/share currently 250,000 won/share.
-
Quote:Wind ArmorOriginally Posted by Black Pebble
You're missing about 4 really obvious ones, most of which were expansions or modifications of what had been seen so far.
EDIT: Hints. Tanker, Controller, Dominator, Blaster.
Lobster Blast
Carp Assault
Clown Control ? -
Quote:Well I wouldn't say customization is unquantifiable. Blasters certainly had considerably more customizability than say Epic ATs. You could argue about the specific amount but all of our ATs with the exception of the epics had an incredible degree of customizability. The intangible factors only really come into play when they are desired but unavailable, and others have them. Crabs without the pack would be an example.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Not necessarily. From the point of view of the player, *if* a player is having fun they have no obligation to logically prove it. But from the point of view of the game designer, games don't target individuals, they target audiences and that means counter-balancing lots of different priorities for lots of different people, no one of which is objectively more important. We don't say performance is quantifiable but customization is not, so customization is unimportant.
The point being made, I believe, is that a preference isn't prioritized because its quantitative in nature, not that quantitative preferences are unimportant. They are just no more important for being capable of being put into Excel. Bella was not saying all players should be like her, but rather all players that are like her have equally valid reasons for enjoying the game than all players like THB. And I'm pretty sure all game dev teams would agree, or they wouldn't spend so much time on intangibles. -
Quote:Sounds a little like "The Shape of Things to Come" the bad one with Jack Palance not "Things to Come" by Cameron Menzies, that's arguably one of the greatest movies of all time.Originally Posted by Mister_Bison
Since we are on that, I wanted to ask some gurus of the 80s, but possibly either early 90s or even back to the 60s. The robot picture reminded me.
I remember a film where a robot, sent against the protagonists, was destroyed and got reconstructed, he ressembled Robby the Robot, the bubble arms and round glass head, but wasn't quite like it. There was a dark and red corridor at the beginning also. Then, an asteroid came down on the base, then all I remember was seeing something that ressembled Moonbase alpha from Space 1999, from which the heroes (a family or something like that) took off in a saucer+Enterprise tail ship, then they found another planet they explored in the saucer only part of their ship.
That's all I can remember of the film, I thought I labeled the VHS "Space 2000" but I can't quite really remember, but for reasons unknown, I took the VHS apart to see how it was functionning. I was 8 or so at the time, so it's quite old and doesn't make any sense.
Could you help me put a title on that ? Thank you !
Barry Morse and the moon scenes might have made you think of space 1999 -
Quote:LOL that series had Wilma Deering and Princess ArdalaOriginally Posted by Arcanaville
I'm sure that's why you remember that episode:
Supporting players got drowned out. -
Quote:If you want challenge play with just SOs or no enhancements. I know there is a certain something that is lost doing it that way but it allows you the challenge.Originally Posted by B_L_Angel
Variety is the spice of life. Blasters are something very different in this game and having them homogenized wasn't going to improve the overall enjoyment of the game. People that wanted to play tank mages had almost every option in the game. People that wanted to play something where performance was much more dependent on skill than build had almost no options in this game. It wasn't even a case of outperforming with skill in the AT, it was just nice to have an AT that when you were at the top of your game you saw it, and when you were phoning it in you saw it.