Wing_Leader

Okay, I will concede that is a good reason. I will, however, speculate that the devs delivered this type of gameplay not in response to customer demand for it, but due to a lack of design sophistication within their ranks. I know that's sort of an ugly think to suggest, but it adheres to Occam's Razor better than the alternative, at least to my mind.

This feels like a straw man to me. I don't think anyone advocates a "completely dumbing down" of the trials, though stopping the release of "this type of content" is surely a move I would eagerly support. There are a lot of alternatives to completely dumbing things down, all of which fall squarely in the "improve gameplay" department. Alternatives that make the resulting trials play very differently than they do now, but are neither dumb, simple, or unchallenging. Surely you realize that's not only possible, but what most of us are actually calling for.

Except that there's no reasonable defense against it. That sort of thing is generally avoided in good comic writing, and so it doesn't belong in our trials either. Take, for example, the Avatar of Hamidon's Confusion attack. That is like the Telepathist mind-f**k in that it totally messes with the league's ability to deal with the AV. Note, however, that a few toons with Clarion can counter this crisis. That is comic-book-sensible, and is not unlike Charles Xavier stepping in and giving everyone mental protection in order to carry on with the fight. But as far as I know, there is no mental power in the game that can "pull a Xavier" and protect toons against the Telepathists. That is why that particular gimmick is so pernicious and unwelcome.

Oh, and I want to take a moment to give a shout out here to anyone and everyone who has repeatedly pointed out the biggest single flaw in the Telepathist conceit which is the contradictory way in which it works inside/outside. None of the Telepathist/Rock-thrower apologists ever address this point; I assume they are conceding it, but if so there really is no point in defending any other aspect of this gimmick since even handwaving the logic of the debuff away still leaves fatal flaws that require even more stretches of twisted logic to justify them.

That's a fair question. I have a mental whiteboard of ideas I would love to explore, if only I could quit my day job and go into MMO game design full time. Granted, most of my ideas would not retrofit into CoX given its current limitations (it is level-based for one thing). But while I don't have the resources to design my ideal replacement for CoX, that doesn't mean I don't actively think about this, in some detail, on a more or less continuous basis. However, I don't feel these forums are the appropriate place to discuss them, mostly because they wouldn't be constructive. That nevertheless does not invalidate the complaints directed at the current design philosophy of the Incarnate trials. I have, in other threads, spoken about the concept of multiple solution vectors, where a "problem", "obstacle", or "challenge" can be solved in numerous ways, rather than just through the direct application of blunt-force dps (Penelope is no different from this; adding the need to taunt another mob to a specific location so you can smack it with overwhelming dps in order to open the gate that allows overwhelming dps to actually affect Penelope is not a sophisticated design development IMO). The only objection I've ever heard to the notion of multiple solution vectors is that they are hard to design properly. Yeah, well, nobody said good game design was easy.

But isn't that sort of the problem? "End-game" content shouldn't become trivial just because of level increases. Elaborate tactical problems, which require coordination, good timing, and good improvisational skills when unexpected wrinkles arise, are not invalidated by large level gaps. If you base all trial problems on the application of dps, then you almost guarantee that said trials become trivialized as the level gap increases. That's where such a primitive approach to trial (game) design really starts to reveal its grave weaknesses. But if you think/design with a little more creativity, you can come up with game problems that can't always be solved just with more damage, or for which having more damage available wouldn't necessarily help much. The current crop of gimmicky "puzzles" is an attempt to do this, perhaps, but they are so binary in nature (either you do exactly the one right thing or the gimmick defeats you), that they only barely scratch the surface of what can be done.

Clearly it wasn't un-fun (to the OP) because they failed. It was un-fun because the trial did not provide adequate information to succeed.

Look, there is no other area of the game in which mission failure is the norm the first time through it. I can't remember the last time I failed a mission, period, much less failed it for lack of knowing what to do to succeed. The Incarnate trials are unique in this respect. There is virtually 0% success rate amongst first-time raiders for any given trial. This is not all due to lack of coordination, or lack of experience with the game in general. It is primarily due to the trials not making it clear what is about to happen, what needs to be done about it, and with clues as to how to accomplish those goals effectively. This is a 180-degree flip in terms of content design philosophy, and I have not yet heard a single convincing argument in favor of it.

Well this raises an interesting question, then. What restrictions would you leave in to serve as incentive to go VIP? Virtually everything else in the game can be unlocked with a one-time payment. Some things involve recurring costs (Invention license, AE license, SSAs as they are released), but most of the stuff being touted as critical to basic game play can be purchased outright without having to subscribe. The game isn't technically "free" anymore--and such accounts become premium accounts as a result, unlocking other features without further cost--but it is still a lot less expensive than a monthly subscription. About the only thing unavailable is the Incarnate System, and I doubt that alone is much of a draw to go VIP for most freebie players anyway. Other carrots are needed to dangle in front of noses. You know, like Supergroup access.

I guess it all boils down to how one defines "mindless". But in essence I agree that the Well appears to be exhibiting sentient characteristics, the least of which, IMO, is any evidence of self-preservation. Far more interesting is its apparent ability to manipulate members of sentient races, to offer or withhold its power according to a plan, and to sense, evaluate, and react to distant/multi-dimensional threats.

Now, this bit about it being "directed" stands to throw into question whether it is the Well itself that is doing all these things, and thus exhibiting sentient behavior, or if it is merely like a dumb animal, conditioned and controlled by something even more powerful and more akin to a creature we would expect to be sentient.

Heh. I am going to both agree with you, and disagree with you at the same time. My disagreement is minor, and purely aimed at one small misunderstanding: his WoW clone was not the Stalker, I don't think, but the Ice Blaster, which was probably the closest he could come, in terms of power sets, to the mage he had in WoW, at least based on what little research and preparation he did before hand.

Where I am going to agree with you is with the rest of your sentiments. I don't think he is alone in doing what he did: taking his favorite WoW toon and recreating it in CoX. It seems that a lot of players want to turn Paragon City into Azeroth, and as you say, we have an over-abundance of mundane weapon power sets to prove it.

Since when? For all living things on this planet which exhibit self-directed behavior, self-preservation is genetically encoded as an instinct, not a cognitive process requiring a temporal lobe.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it doesn't really matter where these sorts of gimmicks appear, be it TFs or iTrials, they are weak sauce game design elements just the same. A lazy way of delivering a challenge no matter which part of the content they affect.

Special text wouldn't be necessary if they didn't resort to lame "tricks" to turn the iTrials into a puzzle-solving exercise reminiscent of a Rubik's Cube. LLR'U'RBL and you can take down Penelope; anything else at that stage and you just end up with a cube more mixed up than when you started (i.e., you lose).

Same here, assuming you mean set IOs when you say you don't worry about them until 50. L30/35 generic IOs are basically SOs that you don't ever have to replace, and so they save quite a bit of inf (and reslotting time) over the course of 23 levels.

My enhancement regimen for all characters these days is:

1. The 5 GR enhancements + DFB SOs + TOs/DOs through level 21.
2. Important global proc set IOs start getting slotted at level 20 (or later) depending on the lowest level they become available.
3. Full slot replacement with SOs at 22.
4. Full slot replacement with L30 generic IOs at 27. New slots get L30-40 generic IOs depending on recipe drops and what I can buy from the workbench.
5. Full slot replacement with L50 set IOs at 50.

That last stage is, of course, subject to available funds. Alignment merits and Reward merits can go a long way towards picking up those orange recipes that go for obscene amounts at the market.

As "balanced" as the standard game content may be for SOs, most melee toons really take a huge leap in effectiveness, particularly with regards to defenses and END efficiency once all the necessary set IOs are slotted. The difference in survivablility of my friend's Invuln tanker after replacing all his SOs with his Mids-designed set IO scheme was night and day (reaching DEF softcaps, for instance).

Personally, I wouldn't want to dive into the Incarnate content on just SOs, but maybe that's just me. As a melee toon, there are just too many things that can one- and two-shot you if you don't have those set bonuses backing you up. Furthermore, many of the more annoying Incarnate gimmicks are much more tolerable with set IOs in play. For instance, my WP brute can usually stand in one of Malaise's World of Anguish circles and ignore the DoT; it usually goes away before it has whittled any more than about 25% of my hit points. I really doubt that would have been possible on SOs.

One of the points being raised here is that trials like TPN, Lambda, and BAF fail narratively precisely because they do not fit within the conceptual motif of "fighting back the forces of cosmic level evil". They might make for interesting story arcs or TFs in the 1-50 game, but they feel utterly out of place sharing dramatic territory with what is (ostensibly) to come. In my view, one can not really use conceptually flawed trials to prop up a flawed gameworld view.

Game balance has been used to justify more poor design choices than I have the time to enumerate. If that is your chief justification, then you've lost the argument right then and there, afaic.

As for the related question you raise, the reason to play a class that is absurdly less powerful than another is because it is presumably fun to do so. Players clearly want to play with these low-powered character concepts. What they should also have, however, is a gaming environment that supports that lower-powered character concept without forcing them into content that strikes significant levels of cognitive dissonance. Comics have (usually lousy) writers to work around such conceptually ridiculous jams, allowing Batman to go on missions suited mostly for guys on the power level of Superman and Green Lantern, but a programmed game engine does not. Other constructs must be put in place to insure that such silliness doesn't occur and utterly shatter verisimillitude, but CoX chose not to pursue those design possibilities. We're seeing some of the consequences of that decision in the Incarnate system.

If Squirrel Girl is equivalent to Robin, power wise, then this is where we part ways philosophically. There is no justification that isn't profoundly contrived and squarely occupying poor writing territory. It would take an extraordinary feat of writing to make that work, IMO, and I can't think of many cases where that sort of absurd outcome was narratively earned.

If you define Incarnate content as "cosmic level threats like Galactus", then yes that is exactly what I'm saying. And the narrative of the Incarnate content seems to take that view (i.e., The Battalion). The fact that the engine itself doesn't agree with the narrative motif it is supposed to embody is the very problem at the heart of this debate.

Moreover, the fact that you seem to feel that any character regardless of conceptual power level who reaches level 50 is, or should be, equivalent to Superman clearly shows either a profound failure of the level construct in RPGs or a significant disconnect with the notion of "character concept" and the limitations that might impose on the game experience. Batman may be 50th level, but he's a 50th level detective, not a 50th level cosmic super warrior, and any game that makes the distinction invisible or irrelevant is profoundly flawed IMO. Just like any comic that pits him against Apocalypse and expects him to be able to duke it out (and survive) using the same methods as Superman (i.e., melee combat), or using anything remotely resembling conventional weaponry is comic writing of the weakest kind, and is not the sort of thing I want my RPGs, MMOs or tabletop, emulating. Why would anyone else want that degree of surreal absurdism?

Yes, you have to be more for the later trials. But this is a natural consequence of having level shifts, which don't extend during SSK, in the first place. 50+3 heroes begets 54+3 villains which, thanks to the purple patch, begets players who feel useless if they are only 50 or 50+1 because they are useless (unless they are buff-oriented support toons). This isn't a product of player prejudice against newbies or casual players, but a product of the Incarnate system design that puts veteran trial runners in the undesireable position of having to be picky about the characters they recruit into a league.

I think there is only a double standard if one takes the position that heroes like Daredevil should be fighting villains like Galactus. Or that heroes like ninja-girl Lady Tsukira should be fighting villains like Rularuu or Tyrant or the Hamidon. Hint: they shouldn't. Once you realize this, there is no double standard to defend (which I don't).

Gritty, "street-level" crimefighting is a sub-branch of superhero comics. Characters fit for that narrative environment are not fit for cosmic level threats like The Avengers fight. And even with characters like Captain America, the writers are forced to contrive plot elements for him so he can still "fit in" and contribute and not get turned into a fine red mist at the first blow from a villain like The Destroyer. Anyone with half a brain rolls their eyes at such contrivances, and we mostly try to overlook it. But that doesn't grant comic writers license to extend that same kind of absurd contrivance the other way around, in which a mind-controlled Aunt May is suddenly gifted with enough handwavium to lay the Hulk low with one swipe of a butter knife.

I agree that on some level this is a failure of presentation, but that isn't the same as believing that the problem is merely one of insufficient explanation. Some here seem to feel that the Rock Problem would be simply solved with a clearer explanation of what's happening (with the Telepathists).

Well, count me among those who feel that there is no amount of explanatory text or dialog that makes civilian-thrown rocks an acceptible method for bringing down an Incarnate. And I don't care how you couch the Incarnate's Journey, crawl-before-you-walk or we-are-all-goliaths-to-someone's-david or we-all-have-mental-debuffing-as-our-Kryptonite, the degree of disatisfaction it engenders can't just be handwaved away as "Well, superhero comics are full of such dumb, assinine disbelief-suspending nonsense, so what are you complaining about?" The truth is there is a lot of brain-dead plotting to be found in comics and I don't exactly endorse that either.