Arcanaville

Except that's not the choice before humanity today. I should say, that's not the choice before Cole today. Humanity has no choice. So the real question is: should humanity get to choose its fate, or is it acceptable for someone else to choose for them, whose primary qualification for the position of Judge of All the World is that he can beat up everyone else on it.

It is, ultimately, black and white because Cole offers no other choice. Either you are with him or against him. So everyone must choose. If you think he's right, you're on his side. If you don't, you're not. Cole isn't offering the third choice of conscientious objector. If you object to his rule, and take any steps that have any chance of weakening any part of it, he'll squash you like a bug. It gets no more black and white than that. Ask Duray's teeth.

I'm not saying its obviously black and white against Cole. I'm saying you either oppose Cole or you don't. Maybe you don't know if he's "evil" or "bad" or whatever else you want to call it, and maybe you'll never know, and maybe you think that's unknowable. But within the fiction of the game, you will still have to make your choice. "I don't know" is making a choice, its ultimately choosing to let others make the choice for you.

Limited could mean lots of things, but when you're not sure, you're not supposed to assume it means what you want it to mean, and then act disappointed when its not. And we're not supposed to be especially sympathetic to people who interpret ambiguity in that fashion.

And in this case, limited means you can buy them from the store, but the in-game invention systems including normally crafted inventions will not work without an unlock license. It is entirely reasonable to describe that as "limited access." It is definitely not "no access." The incarnate system is, at the moment, correctly described as "no access."

Such as?

Perception does not affect a critter's ability to target a foe. If the critter is "aware" of the target in the sense of it existing on its aggro list at all, and the power the critter wants to use is in range, and no object blocks line of sight, the power will work even if the target lies outside the critter's perception radius.

This is true for all critters, and not just Antimatter.

I'm sure you could generate a narrative in which Hitler was the good guy, and the Allied powers were the villains. And I'm not saying that to be flippant or to invoke Godwin, I mean its literally possible to do so if you start with no initial morality principles and try only to construct a system of morality that is self-consistent without having to adhere to any preconceived notions of right and wrong. Morality has no "first principles" in that sense that come from the physical world. The physical world frankly doesn't care.

However, I don't think anyone is debating whether or not by some weird code Cole could be interpreted as the good guy. I think most people are arguing whether some reasonable extension of commonly held beliefs of right and wrong are consistent with Cole's behavior. And I think in that sense, some people are getting hung up on whether there is a "greater good" served by Cole.

We can never know that with certainty: that's one of the limits of mortality. We'll never know the "ultimate" result of Cole's actions, because there is no ultimate result. There's only what happens next, and then what happens after that, ad infinitum. We can't judge Cole based on that criteria, because that's beyond the limits of human beings.

We *can* judge him based on his *principles* regardless of where they "ultimately" lead. And Cole's principles seem to be that first, tyranny is an acceptable price for safety taken to any extreme, and second, that might makes right so if he can enforce his morality on all of humanity, he has both the right and the obligation to do so.

All you have to do to judge Cole is ask yourself if you believe that: if safety is so important that all other human rights are expendable, and if I am stronger than you, I have the right to exercise that strength to do what I think is in your best interests regardless of your opinion on the matter, so long as I genuinely believe I'm right.

When you strip away the philosophy, I think those two questions will be easy for most people to answer, especially because, as I said, Cole shows all signs that he believes both absolutely, not just in theory.

I don't think so. In Watchmen, Adrian was in a position of having to decide that the ends justify the means, because he was working towards a noble, in theory, end: prevent nuclear war and push the world back from the brink of mutual annihilation. He only had to murder a few million people to do it. But separate from that, the world after his intervention would continue to spin, much as it had before, without him.

Cole doesn't have a simple end that justifies his means. His means *are* an end. Do you think there will ever come a day when Cole thinks he doesn't need absolute power, that he won't need thought police, that he won't be required to crush any opposition to him or his rule, that he won't always need to have his boot on the throat of humanity for its own good?

Mother Mayhem isn't a means to an end. Mother Mayhem is an acceptable end to Cole. He's fine with Mother Mayhem thought-policing the world forever as long as she doesn't challenge his ultimate authority directly. He's fine with absolute tyranny forever as long as it generates his utopia.

There is no big payoff that comes from Cole's "means." Praetoria *is* the big payoff that comes from Cole's means. To decide if Cole is intrinsically right or wrong, all you have to ask yourself is whether Cole's absolute dictatorship and all that comes with it is acceptable FOREVER. If it is, great. If its not, then right or wrong, good or evil, he's the enemy, and you're on the other side.

Cole's philosophy is if you're not with him, you're against him. I'm certainly not with him, and Cole gives me no other grey area tightrope-walking options but to be against him.

If it was me, I would probably make some limited subset of the Incarnate system available for purchase to unlock, but that doesn't change the principle that there will always be some things you can't buy as a premium, and they will be things you want (or it would be meaningless to make them exclusive perks of being a VIP subscriber).

DDO is in fact different than CoH Freedom in that its closer to the F2P model than to the subscription model in its hybrid implementation. In fact, some people wonder if the advantages of subscribing are even worth it. And there are favor points to consider, which are mechanically a staple of the typical F2P system but absent in CoH Freedom entirely.

Because we're not an F2P game.


However, I reiterate my original assertion. You still sound like someone that wants subscriber benefits without having to pay for them:

In other words, you're ceasing your subscription and you won't play as premium if premium is too restrictive. Either you were going to cancel your subscription anyway, in which case we would have lost you as a revenue source with or without Freedom, or you're cancelling your subscription *because* of Freedom, in which case you're cancelling your subscription because the other options are not to your liking. That is illogical on a grand scale, but it supports my contention that whether you say so or not, you want subscriber benefits without having to pay for a subscription.

This says unambiguously that the *reason* you don't want to subscribe is because you want to spend that money otherwise on ala carte items. That's tantamount once again to saying you want subscriber perks without having to pay for them, so you can *also* get what you're perceiving as a benefit of being Premium, which is to optionally buy what you want.

However, you're overlooking the fact that buying things ala carte is not a benefit of being Premium. VIP subscribers get the same opportunity. So in saying you want to spend money on ala carte things *and* lose nothing by terminating your subscription, you want subscription rights without having to subscribe.

In other words, you believe there should be *no* rewards exclusive to VIP subscribers. In other words, you want all the rights of VIP subscribers without having to subscribe.


You can say "no I would rather play as a premium player" but that is a meaningless statement. You want to play as a premium player on the assumption that a premium player can buy anything a VIP player can, has the rights VIP players have, and has no specific disadvantage to a VIP player, except possibly for a token expense to unlock things, which would undoubtably be cheaper than actually subscribing:

Also:

You need to equally get it into your head that this game is not a F2P game, it is not DDO, and it is not LOTRO. It is City of Heroes, and City of Heroes is inventing its own model for City of Heroes Freedom. It is their right to make their own model, and they have no obligation to copy anyone else's model, or meet the expectations of people who think they have an obligation to copy anyone else's model. A good reason for not doing something is "it won't work here" if you can prove it. A completely irrelevant statement is "why not do it this way instead: it works over there."

We look at other systems, we learn from their successes and mistakes, b but then we apply those lessons here, filtered through the devs' goals for the game. Not Turbine's goals, not Cryptic's goals, not anyone else's goals.

I actually think there's a valid point in there somewhere, so I'm willing to dig it out of there.

It is a potentially dangerous thing to sell certain things because doing so potentially devalues the effort to earn them, if they are otherwise acquirable through effort. However, there are a number of other issues any game designer has to balance against that issue, many of them acting contrary to that point. For example, its also dangerous to sell things you cannot acquire in-game, because it creates the possibility that players will perceive a pay to play or pay to win situation where they are being nickle and dimed for all playing opportunities - and I use that phrase much more strongly than its being casually tossed around on the forums these days. If selling things that you can otherwise earn through in-game effort is dangerous, and selling things you cannot otherwise earn through in-game effort is dangerous, the conclusion is that selling anything is potentially dangerous and you simply have to exercise good judgment, not that you can't sell anything.

Speaking directly to the veteran reward system. When it was, in fact, a veteran reward system it was rewarding subscribed time. This was a *proxy* for both money spent on the game (a form of financial commitment) and playing time (a form of activity commitment). It was a strong proxy in the former case and a weak one in the latter case, but the combination was what was being rewarded. NCSoft decided to reward its longer committed players.

Under Freedom, players can now play without paying a subscription. Theoretically speaking, players could still commit a large amount of time to the game, but account longevity isn't a good proxy for that commitment - it isn't even a good one now. And account longevity has no specific subscription associated with it for non-VIPs, so there's no specific financial commitment inherent in just being around for a long time. The devs did, however, envision that many Premium players would be playing in a manner similar to VIP players, just without subscriptions but with long term points purchases. Such a player would be theoretically offering a similar, if not identical activity and financial commitment to the game which they felt was worthy of being rewarded in a similar if not identical manner.

The compromise was to treat Premium player financial investment as being comparable to VIP monthly overall investment at a $15 = one month ratio. That way, a Premium player that buys points to spend on the game would, over time, earn a comparable number of reward points as they spent a sufficient amount of money. To preserve the VIP advantage, VIPs can earn reward tokens at a slightly better conversion rate with their subscriptions (depending on their terms of subscription) and get the same opportunity to earn even more reward tokens by also spending money on the store, *and* having a path to exclusive VIP rewards.

Its not perfect, but it recognizes that under Freedom, Premium players can, over time, make a commitment to the game that is worth rewarding under the same theory, amended by the changes due to the new Freedom paradigm.

Does this "devalue" subscriptions? Technically, I suppose it does in one sense, in that without this path to reward tokens subscribers would have access to something Premium players had no access to at all. But I don't think its an unreasonable compromise when taken in context. A current or former subscriber could choose, if they wished, to switch their subscription for a premium-based account where they continued to spend money, just less, on playing the game. Their "veteran" reward status would continue to increment, but just at a slower rate. New players who wish to start as free players are rewarded for their transition to more (financially) committed players through the same system that also rewards VIP subscribers for veteran status.

In this case, I do not believe the reward system devalues subscriptions by a materially noticeable amount, but has advantages in presenting a better earning curve across the three tiers of players. And given it does no appreciable harm, it fits with Freedom's overall strategy to try to give players the best possible experience that doesn't otherwise compromise the basic principles of the game.

Now, does the person who drops a thousand dollars on the game to unlock everything instantly have the same overall commitment to the game as someone who has played for years? Probably not: assuming they can afford to drop a grand on the game instantly, the grand probably isn't a significant hardship to that person in the first place. But that just means this is an imperfect system: in rewarding those dedicated Premium players that play for years and continuously spend money over time, not as much per month as a subscriber, but a substantial amount in its own right, and moreover on a long-term basis, the system ultimately also rewards people who just want to buy their way to the top instantly. I'm ok with that particular imperfection at the moment, until I see some evidence that this "buy their way to the top immediately" notion is a remotely likely scenario and has any significant impact on the overall game. I don't see it as particularly likely. I think its more likely some tier 7 VIP player might decide to make the jump to tier 9 by buying a bunch of points to do it. And I'm fine with that.

Sounds like you wouldn't rather play the game as a premium player. Sounds like you want to play the game as a VIP player but just not pay the subscription.

The game mechanics direct critters to line up like bowling pins, only closer, and be killed by throwing a quarter at them and watching it bounce between their foreheads until they fall down. People say that's what's good about this game: that you can vaporize tons of foes simultaneously and that's part of what makes the players feel mighty. But seeing what its done to City of Heroes, and in particular what its done to both AoE and knockback - and I'm talking about the attitudes towards both, not the actual effects - I hope this is an object lesson out there that ensures that no MMO dev team, anywhere, for all time, ever makes the same mistake again.

There are some things you simply cannot give players, because when they take it and run with it they'll run face first into a tree. One of those things is the impression that massed kills is a player right.

Knockback wouldn't be as much of a problem if the critters didn't present stupidly grouped targets for AoE, or contrawise they had reinforcing buffs just like players that made them far more powerful and dangerous when you *let* them remain stupidly grouped together. The big problem with knockback really is that many players would rather the critters not move at all from the instant they are spawned, so all movement short of being taunted into a pile is considered bad.

The mechanics of knockback only make it more difficult to make knockback have pros and cons, like immobilize has pros and cons, because of its extremely quirky nature when it comes to how it interacts with resistance and protection.

Power Siphon synergizes better with Fiery Embrace on Scrappers than things like Rage does due to its mechanics. Specifically, PS tends to average around 60% total buff, but that's averaged from a high of ~150% to a low of zero when its down; if you sync PS with FE you'll concentrate a huge buff on FE's extra damage while its there, which improves the performance of PS over things like Rage, which have a higher average buff in general.

As to SS/FA, I find SS/FA brutes to be a bit one-dimensional. They can be fantastic (PB)AoE powerhouses, but outside of burn farming they aren't all that great. YMMV.

I'm sure his teeth are all completely discrete.

That they award empyrean merits.


If Prometheus appeared in Talos and said:

"Behold. These creatures contain a small portion of power from the Well of the Furies. Defeating them will grant all who aid in their destruction an Empyrean Merit."

I'd bet the Hamidon seeds would flee Primal Earth so fast they'd leave skid marks.

Hey Duray, I'll give you three guesses as to who got his skull crushed yesterday for launching an unauthorized Hamidon incursion into Primal Earth.

But even if the whole bits of skull thing is common knowledge, that doesn't mean Duray can randomly talk to anyone about anything else he might have had in motion in the last month.


"Psst. So about that skull implosion thing. You say that was about the whole Hamidon thing, huh? I know I was thinking about it, but I guess I did it, huh? Did Emperor Cole mention anything else before he ventilated my face? Anything about a hidden lab or stolen primal earth technology or that Mark VI Warwalker I'm not supposed to be working on?"

"Seriously Duray, how big is the radius of Emperor Cole's thunderstrike? Stay at least that far away from me please."

I was actually thinking mind/kin as well. The trick is to make sure it its slotted well for ally assistance but doesn't have credible damage. Technically, powerful confuses mean the build isn't *completely ineffective* outside of teaming, but without damage it also can't really solo, because it would have a heck of a time earning any XP.

I wouldn't solo it, but it would definitely contribute strongly to teams, while basically dealing zero damage (so long as you stay away from Mesmerize).

Tangent, or no tangent. There is no try.

How will he know to ask them? If you just woke up with a one month gap in your memory and its pretty clear that only happens if the ruler of the world either let it happen or did it, would you start randomly asking whoever was nearby "hey, psst, did the Emperor punch me in the face or something within the last few weeks?"

You'd think he would be a little more discrete than that.

Whatever the unwashed masses expect, I don't want Paragon Studios changing the game just to accomodate those expectations. So we can either try to explain the distinction to them, or we can let them get frustrated and leave. But making the game what they expect goes against everything City of Heroes Freedom stands for, which is to remain a game which prioritizes the VIP subscribers first.

If they are going to compare what we give away for free to what other games give away for free, I think they'll find what we give away for free is quite competitive with what most hybrid MMOs give away for free, and I acknowledge that you mention that as well. But its important to note City of Heroes is not trying to be the best free game around. I think its great we're competitive, but if we're found lacking as not the best free deal in town, I'm okay with that as well. If you want to play the best free game in town, City of Heroes may not be the game for you. There are lots of others to try, and I don't want City of Heroes to sacrifice anything to try to compete in that space. That space is not our space.

We are, as I've said before, stealing some of the toys that free to play games use to implement their games, to make a better subscription game with ala carte options. If some people think that in using those tools we have an obligation to deliver what they expect those tools to deliver, I'm here to say that obligation does not exist. From the very beginning, the devs have been very clear City of Heroes is not becoming "free to play" as the term is normally used. Allow me to quote Brian Clayton, executive producer:

"What is City of Heroes Freedom? For starters, Freedom is NOT Free-to-Play."

Maybe *he* should have used a bigger font.

That was my impression as well. And in fact, who's to say that Duray wasn't a product of Olympian Guard engineering in the first place in the Praetorian dimension.

Time is a bit fungible in City of Heroes and MMOs in general, but I'm assuming that Cole doesn't care if he completely erases Duray's memories of planning the Hamidon incursion, Cole is just trying to set Duray back far enough so that any proximate plans Duray had were just basically nullified.

I'm also guessing that while Duray's memories are being erased, his older memories aren't being rewritten. So Duray is going to wake up suddenly with a month gone, and I'm guessing he's going to put two and two together and realize that whatever he was planning, it didn't end well. But with a month of his memory gone he won't know what specifically went horribly awry without careful research, and he won't have the time given he's being sent right into combat.

Hmm. Their Hamidon was so much more powerful and destructive than ours because theirs was the fully grown and mature Hamidon, while ours has been stunted into relative infancy.

You know, this implies that Primal Earth was actually saved by the fact that we farm everything.




Primal Earth FTW! Ye-haw!

If you discovered that a serial killer was taking care of his elderly mother, would you say he wasn't "all bad" and just a good man with a character flaw?

Cole is the bad guy because, unless you are a fascist, he believes he has the right to control the world and remake it in his image, and that's traditionally considered bad.

The fact that Cole is not an indiscriminate mass murderer does not make him automatically a hero. It makes him not a mass murderer. He still wants to take over the place, install a dictatorship, deploy thought police, and crush all opposition to his will. Cole believes we need to be saved from the Hamidon, so he'll try to save us from the Hamidon. Cole also believes we need to be saved from ourselves. Everyone willing to be saved from themselves, step forward and join the Praetorians. Everyone else will have irreconcilable differences with his majesty.

Human beings are not all bad or all good, but we can judge people based on their overall actions and morality. Cole's morality is "I know what's best, and since I have the power to bend everyone to my will for the greater good I intend to use it." Whether that's "good" or "bad" depends on your point of view I suppose, but I know which side I'm on.

I don't have this issue anywhere else.