Arcanaville
-
Posts
10683 -
Joined
-
Quote:You would lose. I would specifically take out a loan to double up my bet on that one.Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
Right now they do. I could sue them for past expenses, the box and content costs specifically(and get much more than I paid as a punishment to the company for screwing customers), for charging a secondary fee that was not agreed to on a signed form before purchase.
Actually, I should have pointed this out from the start:Quote:This has been tested with movies. Movie owners are now, at least in the US, legally allowed to make back up copies of their own movies that they paid to own without a secondary fee despite movie companies not wanting that allowed.
Neither in the above case nor in the second case have you bought content This very specific legal distinction seems to have escaped you. In the first case, you bought *media* - the physical matter that contains the content. The legal right to "back up" is the right to make copies of the physical recording but it does not actually mean you own the movie itself: if you took your "backup copy" and gave it to a friend, and kept the original, technically speaking you've violated the law, federal copyright law specifically. The law entitles you to protect your recording from loss or damage so that you can continue to use what you own, which is a recording of the content. But you do not own the actual content and have extremely limited rights to it. If you play it at the local bar you work at on a big screen TV that patrons can watch, once again you are breaking the law.Quote:I just want to play the game and purchase new content, while retaining all the content I paid for, and have it be fair to everyone in the future where all options are viable.
And here, in City of Heroes, you have never paid for content, because CoH has never in the legal sense sold you content. The subscription pays for access to the servers. The boxes paid for limited access to a set of content on those servers, contingent on subscription. You say above "...for charging a secondary fee that was not agreed to on a signed form before purchase." I'm not sure why you think that there's any requirement for there to be a "signed form" before purchase. The actual box says "additional oneline fees required." It says that on every boxed copy I can currently find handy, which includes the original box, the good vs evil box, and the Going Rogue box. They all say "First month of play included; Internet connection required; Additional online fees required." -
Quote:Well, you've been doing both for years under the current City of Heroes model, so I would say it can't be that much of a problem for you. You're going to find, if you pay attention, that this issue of paying for general access, and then paying for specific elements within the thing you access, is actually extremely common, not just in gaming, but literally everywhere.Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
I just can't legally or ethically rectify the cost of content and the cost of server access fees on top of each other.
One doesn't make sense when the other is present unless the latter is optional. -
Quote:The fact that you got yours for free doesn't give your point any more validity. The fact is other people do pay, and for your point to be valid all those people who do pay would have to be doing so without reason. Which means not just MMOs, but lots of subscription industries all over the place would have to be violating this principle of yours.Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
3) I got a free DVR and tuner box with a satellite TV service agreement. I didn't have to buy it first then pay again to use it. If anything, they are both included in an agreement signed before installation, unlike MMO games.
You just gave more credit to my point.
As to the notion that the only reason this still happens is because no one has thought to sue over it, that's not likely. EULAs have been held up under far stronger suits. The only reason you might not have read about a final judgment in a suit like you're describing is because if anyone actually tried this line of argument I doubt it would have made it past preliminary motion to dismiss. -
Quote:The incarnate system is limiting in one way, but it isn't all bad: while there are many people who are unwilling to do the trials in any form, they are the minority. Conversely, for many players unwilling to farm or marketeer, the path to at least nominal amounts of incarnate power is far easier than the path to high level invention builds, and the moderate levels of incarnate power do not vastly outstrip the higher levels like the top tier invention builds do. It does act to distribute power in a different way than the invention system. Its an end game system, so it will be a minority participation system for a while, just as even leveling was. But it will likely act net to spread power out over a wider percentage of players, or at least those with level 50s.Originally Posted by Another_Fan
Don't know how you are using democratized, but we have recently taken a large step back from that. The high end incarnate powers as a practical matter are only available to people willing to do trials. Seeing as incarnate items are all account bound this limits access to the current peak of power.
This is true, but I was responding to the statement that given the changes since ED, we're all vastly more powerful than we used to be. That's not generally true. The fact that its not generally true because of other counterbalancing changes doesn't change the point. In fact, it is the point.Quote:Many of the changes you are talking about really aren't about changes in the way enhancements and inventions work but are about overall nerfs to the way particular powers work. While your ill/rad isn't as powerful perma doms are much more powerful. The doms can take max advantage of invention system.
Just a note: we talk about the +4s in the trials like they are at least a significant threat, even if strong teams can deal with them. Back in the I2 days PUGs used to farm +5s with relative ease. In some areas we are more powerful, but in other areas we haven't even scratched the surface of circa I2/I3 power. -
Quote:Back when I was leveling energy/energy, which might have been back when you were leveling that blaster, the crash didn't actually work. Yeah we lost our end but if we had stamina we started recovering immediately, and energy/energy could use conserve power after nova when it was up.Originally Posted by Flarstux
Once a night?
Back when I was leveling my first blaster - energy/energy - I used Nova every chance I got when running with my regular 8-man team, which worked out to roughly every third group, give or take. This was before IO sets. With frankenslotting - three dam/recharge, 1 dam IO and 1 recharge IO - woo hoo!
Devs, please don't screw up the nukes.
I used to go berserk with Nova also, but mostly because it was a cool looking power. Not because it was actually more useful than not using it. That "wow" factor is something I would not want to lose in the interests of making nukes more utilitarian, which is why I prefer to keep the crash and add more wow, rather than remove the crash and eliminate some of the wow. -
Quote:Because you can't resolve something the audience is unaware of, so obviously resolution cannot come first.Originally Posted by Durakken
It's not surprising at all.
It's long been known when you present something you tell someone what you are going to tell them. Tell them what you are going to tell them. Then, tell them what you told them. In other words, you spoil what your conclusion is, tell them how you got there, and then tell them your conclusion is.
It makes me wonder why someone hasn't invented the better story format than the exposition, build up, resolution format we're used to and use something like.
Resolution, exposition, build up, resolution.
it might be better, given the data ^.^
In one sense, all journeys have a beginning, a middle, and an end, so exposition, build up, resolution is more of a truism than a rule: you can't do anything I can't *describe* in that fashion, even if it was not your intent. But as to people trying to play with that basic structure, it happens. And oh lookie, directed by the same guy that played with it again quite recently. I'd say both reversal and recursion are not part of the standard base repertoire of average storytelling. -
Quote:I think we need an imaginary people only server, so all the rants at imaginary people will be directed there.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
That was a heck of a necropost. Resurrect a thread that all involved are glad died by constructing a gigantic straw man and acting irate about it. It's not even worth weeding through that necro mess to piece-quote and explain everything that's wrong. Next time, actually read the thread before you comment on what is and isn't in it, Dragon, because you're being pissed off at imaginary people.
-
Quote:I can prove you did not pay for access in perpetuity to those ten archetypes by buying the boxed editions. Stop subscribing now, then check to see how many you continue to have access to.Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
I could not resist quoting this and adding to it.
That is why I have a problem with Freedom.
1) I literally did pay for all base 10 archetypes, including masterminds and controllers, because I bought the first boxes that included them.
If they are going to let us keep what we have purchased then they shouldn't be taking those archetypes away from me and those others who bought the boxes. They have record of serial codes applied to ensure this.
Go ahead Lemur Lad; refute that the first boxes included those archetypes as a feature under the same price. I would like to see the excuse for letting people play the other 8 for free while those who purchased can't play all 10. Not even "performance issues" could be cited as a good enough reason.
The fact that City of Heroes Freedom will allow *access* to *some* things doesn't mean they have to allow access to *everything*. Today, non-subscribers have access to nothing. In Freedom they will have access to some things. Without unlocking them, that won't include all the archetypes that subscribers have access to, but subscribers themselves will only have access to all the original archetypes because they are, in fact, continuing to subscribe.
You have a highly skewed version of reality. Not even the most hardened opponents of onerous EULAs that I know would agree with you that requiring a subscription to use a service is illegal or unethical. This occurs all the time. You pay to install a satellite television system, but you still have to pay a subscription to use it. If you want to claim that you bought the content of the box (legally, you didn't) and that entitles you to use it without NCSoft's service by, say, writing your own server, you might pick up some libertarian support. But to assert that NCSoft should allow you to access a service that costs them money to provide for free just because you bought a box with a disk in it is way, way, way over the line into extremism.Quote:2) That was always an issue with the subscription, and remains so for every mandatory subscription game. It's a legal issue.
They sell it like any other game, but require a second purchase to use it. That would be highly illegal price-gouging if not for the free month of play included with the purchase, but it may not be enough.
A) You still pay full ownership price for the box, not just the $15 for the game time. You own it so, legally, you have the right to use it even fi that means offline.
B) That doesn't account for other content which must follow the same rules.
Any expansion or downloadable content does require the initial box purchase(but you wouldn't buy it without that anyway) but it also does not include any minimum amount of time to use it.
I wouldn't be surprised if a game company, even Blizzard, lost the battle over that sticky issue of charging for ownership but requiring "server access fees" before you can use it.
Not even the EULA and ToS and fine print on the box saying "additional online fees apply" can save them from the trouble of selling ownership of a product, like a movie, and not allowing use of it without an additional subscription "rental fee".
Neither Blizzard nor any other MMO company is going to lose a lawsuit arguing that they charge for ownership twice, because none of those companies claim they are selling ownership in anything. You don't own the client software you bought, and they never assert you do. The only thing you legally own after buying a boxed edition is basically the box. -
Quote:/em Steps up to the plate, points at outfield.Originally Posted by Giant2005
Well first off. CoH is a business, it isn't a charity. With that in mind the changes can be guaranteed to be unfair. They are actively trying to increase their revenue, you and I are their source of revenue. to increase their revenue they have to take more from us. Anything else said on the matter is simply being naive.
1. You and I are their sources of revenue now. Premium players will be additional players increasing their sources of revenue when Freedom launches.
2. Premium players are going to pay a lot more for the same things VIP players get as part of their subscriptions, and due to the PP stipend they will also pay a lot more on average even for thing that are ala carte for all players. How much more? This much more:
3. Even if we players voluntarily pay more than our subscriptions under Freedom than now, just like now its still not unfair if we are getting more for our dollar. Booster packs, for example, are not "unfair." Paragon experimented with releasing more content somewhat ala carte, and players were willing to buy it. If we didn't buy all those booster packs when they were released, we wouldn't then be getting all that content for free instead: we just wouldn't be getting it at all.
If I get more game for the same amount of money I used to pay, that's more than fair. The fact that Freedom might have even more than that for me to buy is not unfair, its being like every other store in existence. Even at my salary, there aren't many stores I actually shop at where I can buy out the entire store. -
Someone noted a pretty big error in one of the numbers given in the guide, and as it turns out many of the numbers were changed after the numbers in this guide were determined. So I've updated the numbers in the rules of thumb listing, and also provided a link to a google docs spreadsheet that will calculate DR for you. Its good for up to a few issues back, but a spot check reveals that the only numbers changed since then are numbers related to teleport, untouchable, onlyaffectsself, and intangible. I will fix those when I can. In the meantime, the link to the DR calculator is here. As noted above, there is a bug in the spreadsheet in that it doesn't calculate negative numbers correctly. I will fix that in the next update, but in the meantime just enter positive numbers and it should work fine: DR is symmetric.
One last thing, because of a quirk in permissions, I had to allow editing on the spreadsheet to allow people to use the pulldowns to make it work. So try not to edit any of the raw numbers in the sheet when using. I hope to have a better solution to that eventually. -
Quote:For the blue ray re-re-re-re-release of the Star Wars movies, I want Samuel Jackson to read the opening crawl for all six movies in his Ezekiel 25:17 voice.Originally Posted by Starflier
Personally I'd settle for Patrick Stewart doing a dramatic reading of the Fresh Prince of Bel-air theme.
It also seems like most variants of #53 require it to be the last entry in the list. -
Quote:Well, I thought American Gods was worth being up there somewhere, but as to your theory:Originally Posted by Ironik
I'm just wondering out loud if a lot of people did this, hence American Gods being in the top 10. I haven't read it, so I'm not judging its worthiness, I'm just curious.
That's the average alpha order of the top X elements of the list. I.e. X=10 represents the average alpha order of the top 10 elements of the list. Notice that the average placement of the entries actually drops fast until you reach the top ten, and then jumps back up and slowly levels off. But note the red line: that is what the actual average should be if the picks were randomly distributed in the alpha order: there were 237 entries, so the average should always be about 118.5. It almost never actually get's there.
And if it wasn't for a few early entires that absolutely were lock-ins for being near the top - I'm thinking of the Lord of the Rings (123), Hitchhiker's (93), and Foundation (80) - and one contemporary one that has gotten a lot of recent press Song of Ice and Fire (191) it would have been even worse.
Perhaps the bias goes even deeper, and includes even the process whereby the original candidates were selected. But entry 118, just above the average spot alphabetically, was The Lies of Locke Lamora. That's slightly higher in the alphabet than the exact center (the M/N border) but not that drastic. So it really does seem there was a skew towards people picking towards the top of the list.
Intriguingly, the lowest point of the averages was literally the top ten: the top ten averaged 71.4, 47 places lower than the average. I'd say that was statistically significant. -
Quote:Lady in the Water was, well, I'll settle for weak. But I agree that the Sixth Sense was really the only classic "twist ending" of the bunch, and not in the "surprise, gotcha" sense, but like I said he was going for the "in retrospect, it all makes sense" kind of twist ending that was intended to make you go back and revisit the entire movie in your mind, just as the flashback visualizes.Originally Posted by Venture
The Sixth Sense is the only story in recent memory to catch me flatfooted. I underestimated Shyamalan. I also think most of his movies have gotten short-changed because people only see him as "the twist ending guy" when except for The Sixth Sense that wasn't what he was going for. (Lady in the Water was weak but still OK; I didn't see The Last Airbender and probably won't since I never watched or cared to watch the cartoon.)
But the ending is different in Unbreakable: he isn't going for the "aha, gotcha" surprise ending. I think it was almost predictable, but it was actually intended to be just a tiny surprise to the viewer, and more of a big surprise to the actual *character* of Dunn. The ending was intended to fit in with the entire story of the superhero origin: he discovers his powers, he realizes he has to use them for good, *and* he meets his nemesis. Its sort of the "oh, of course" kind of pseudo-surprise ending that is intended to be a surprise for some, but not necessarily one for everyone.
Signs doesn't, to my mind, have a surprise or twist ending at all in the normal sense. It has The Big Reveal where we find out why Graham lost his faith. I think Shyamalan himself tells the audience directly through the character of Graham that the ending isn't intended to be a "twist" ending. He says, through Graham, that whether we find meaning in things depends entirely on perspective. If we *look* for meaning, we find it. If not, its all just coincidences and random events. The importance of the ending is not that God was working through Graham's dying wife or that it was an incredible coincidence that his wife said just the right thing to save her family, it was that Graham in a moment of crisis decided to *interpret* that moment as being a message, and when you really try to find meaning, you will. Sure, the sci-fi elements of the movie are incredibly weak, but I think the criticism directed at the ending itself missed the point.
The Village, though, was kind of silly. -
Quote:They specifically stated it was to improve Regen performance in the end-game.Originally Posted by Cyber_naut
This game has obviously moved past IO's, so that point is irrelevant. And if regen is 'blowing the doors off' other powersets, why are the devs buffing it?
And my point is not irrelevant, because I was responding to someone commenting about SO performance, and because game balancing still takes into account SO slotting in large part because its close to the average slotting of leveling builds prior to 50. -
Quote:Thunderous Blast at least has the advantage that it debuffs recovery on the targets for the same amount of time it crashes recovery on the blaster. With a power like Nova, critters can recover from knockback in less than six seconds, while the blaster is crashed for 20.Originally Posted by Lightning_Rod
I love Thunderous Blast just like it is, thank you very much. I do NOT want it to be crashless if it means losing damage.
From a comic book standpoint, it fits Blasters perfectly. Put everything you have into a massive blast that wipes you out, but also wreaks havoc on a lot of bad guys. Situational, but oh so worth it when you decide to make an entire spawn vanish in one massive blast.
The best PBAoE panic button is probably EMP. And its a far stronger and more useful panic button on my controller than Nova is on my Blaster. I use Nova as an offensive first or second strike weapon. Using it as a panic button is like trying to logout as a panic button. -
Quote:Maybe, although it makes changes a harder sell. But there's precedent in Martial Arts: Martial Arts has enhanced critical chances specific to its design in Storm Kick and Eagle's Claw, but only scrappers and stalkers actually get criticals. Brutes and Tankers don't, so those enhanced features don't work for them. So in lieu of that, the devs added different features to both attacks for Tankers, and in particular they swapped higher crit chance for a pretty substantial Parry-like self defense buff, with the justification that Tankers are more defensive and Scrappers more offensive.Originally Posted by Jibikao
Do you think it's possible to have two types of nuke for Blaster and Corruptor/Defender?
This whole question does bring up a nasty problem with balancing crashes. If the risk/reward for crashing was reasonable for defenders, it would probably be far too high for blasters, and vice versa: perfectly balanced for blasters would be worthless for defenders. Corruptors are a somewhat special case for a variety of reasons, including scourge. The average corruptor is not likely to outdamage a blaster with Nova since Nova fires all its damage instantly, but corruptor blizzard can outperform blaster blizzard due to the effects of scourge. That sort of thing makes cross-archetype discussions of balancing these powers tricky. -
Quote:Most regeneration debuffs I'm aware of are magnitude effects, and thus resistance will reduce their magnitude not their duration.Originally Posted by _Pine_
I didn't read through the whole thread to see if this was brought up, but doesn't regeneration debuff resistance affect the length of the debuff, not the magnitude?
-
Quote:But you keep saying you're going to lose all this stuff as if that was unexpected if you had decided to stop paying for access to that stuff. If you want to play ala carte that's fair, but everything you used to be getting because you were paying for it by subscribing you shouldn't expect to continue to get for free just because you *used to* subscribe.Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
I'm just saying 2 things to clarify for those who seem to not know how to read.
1) I want to buy "content" not "time", thus stopping subscribing.
This should be a perfectly valid and worthwhile choice for those who choose it. As of the current Freedom info, it is not worthwhile because you lose access to a lot that you "can't even purchase" as it is "subscriber only".
2) I may have been harsh up there, but I think this is a pretty crappy system for any vet who either can't(I have low funds ok, get off my back) or won't out of the principle of paying for unused time(this sucks too).
Learn to read people.(wasn't in reference to you Arcanaville, but you did miss what I said I want(to buy content not time)
This isn't a rent-to-own game. You only get access to things as a subscriber as long as you continue to pay to be a subscriber. If you stop paying, things you had access to you will stop having access to. That should be expected, even in City of Heroes Freedom. You will then have to buy back all the things you stopped paying for that every other VIP subscriber continues to pay for, just in another way.
On the general subject of things sometimes costing more ala carte than if you just subscribe, while its a perfectly valid choice to play as a Premium ala carte player, there is no reason to expect that subscribers won't get the better deal. Premium players will ultimately pay more if they try to reassemble all of a subscriber's rights one at a time (or all the ones that are even available to buy) because a) subscribers are still the priority and b) if it was cheaper ala carte that would be a penalty against subscribers, which is nonsensical.
Subscribers get the best deal. Premium ala carte players get the benefit of not having to buy everything subscribers get: they can buy only a small subset of what subscribers get. But if they try to get anywhere near the big bundle of stuff subscribers get, they will ultimately pay more because subscribers in effect get a bulk discount for buying VIP rights to the game.
If this sort of tiering is unacceptable to any player, they should probably resign themselves to not playing this game once Freedom launches because I doubt the the fundamental principles of subscribers getting the best deal, premium players getting far less than subscribers by default, and premium players having to pay more to replicate subscriber access, are likely to change before launch, after launch, or any time prior to the lights going out. -
For my part, I would rather Nova keep the crash but get effects commensurate with the high cost of a crash.
Some numbers for discussion purposes. The AoE factor of Nova is 4.75. It averages 4.875 damage today. Its recharge is 360 and its endurance cost is 20.8, plus a crash to zero, plus no recovery for 20 seconds.
If we balanced Nova around its recharge, it would do 12.2 scale damage on average. That is about 760 damage unslotted at level 50 for a blaster.
The endurance recovery for a player with 100 max end and with slotted stamina is about 50 points of endurance in 20 seconds. The end cost is thus at least 70 end and on average closer to 110 end (you have to have at least 20.8 end to fire it, and thus the average amount of end you might have when you fire it is the average of 20.8 and 100 or about 60).
If we balance nova around its average calculated endurance costs it would deal scale 4.45 damage. If we balanced around its maximum endurance cost it would deal 6.07 damage on average.
None of this factors in the qualitative penalty of actually being crashed. It just looks at the bare knuckle recharge and endurance numbers, and calculates what the current powers system rules would predict for the damage of Nova. I'm not saying those rules should automatically apply in extreme situations like this, but I am saying they offer guidence as to the question of whether Nova is really being generous with its damage or not. Its not. Even with the crash, Nova is operating under a damage penalty which is being imposed because the devs simply think Nova shouldn't be allowed to do very much more damage than it currently does, and not for any numerical balancing reason.
So is there a non-numeric gameplay reason why Nova should top out at 4.875 average (I'm using Nova mainly because its one of the simpler crash nukes to analyze)? Well, at level 50 that is about 305 base damage. Its *maximum* damage (scale 6.0 if all waves hit) is about 375. Unslotted for damage, it actually cannot even defeat an even con minion (430 health). Slotted to the ED soft cap it deals 595 average, and 731 max. That is enough to defeat even minions, but not enough to defeat even Lts (860 health). So at the moment, if you fire Nova just slotted for damage, you'll probably kill all the minions around (assuming you hit them all) and leave the Lts and Bosses alive unless they were significantly damaged before you fired Nova.
Of course you can use BU and Aim on Nova in theory. That would increase the damage to 1090 average and 1340 max. That is now enough to defeat Lts, but not Bosses. Of course, that sequence takes, by my calculations, 4.5 seconds from the moment you trigger BU to the moment Nova lands its damage on the targets (1.32 seconds for BU and Aim each in ArcanaTime, and 1.83 seconds from the moment Nova is activated to the moment the damage lands, which it does before Nova completes its cast). That's kind of a long time.
And lets look at that in more detail. 3.0 is guaranteed. 75% will get 1.5 more, and 50% will get 1.5 more damage. That means 12.5% of all targets will get just the base 3.0 damage, 37.5% will get all 6.0, and 50% will get 4.5. Or, out of eight targets, 1 will get base damage, 4 will get base plus one wave, and 3 will get base plus two waves.
The BU + Aim + slotted Nova attack deals 671 base, 1006 intermediate, and 1342 maximum damage. One in eight Lts will survive Nova even when the blaster buffs it to about the maximum damage level the standard powers allows, outside of things like damage inspirations and invention damage bonuses. It also doesn't include defiance buffs which will likely be lower than normal due to the time spent using BU and Aim. Its unlikely to boost that 671 to 860.
So the "panic button" Energy Blast attack, that takes 3 seconds to cast and crashes my endurance to zero making me unable to attack effectively without significant outside aid for 20 whole seconds, cannot reliably kill Lts even if it hits even if I buff it with both of my damage self buff powers.
Given the costs of crashing and the enormous latitude the actual balance formulas provide, I don't think Nova deals enough damage to be balanced, and I don't think there is a gameplay reason why Nova has to be curtailed to the level it is now. The level it is at now can't even reliably kill LTs, and I would think a crashing nuke that knocks out a blaster's damage potential for 20 seconds can afford to take out Lts reliably.
Here's one other way to look at it. Nova has a 16 target cap, so when its activated the maximum amount of damage it can deal, in scale points, is 4.875 * 16 = 78 based on its average damage per target. It then at least attempts to suppress blaster damage for 20 seconds with the crash (you can work around the crash in various ways, but this is what the crash penalty intends to do). That means, more or less, Nova can *at best* be considered to be delivering 78 scale damage in 23 seconds (cast plus crash) or 3.4 DS/sec.
The single target damage potential of Energy Blast itself is around 1.0 DS/sec. Torrent, hitting its target cap, can deal 9.6 DS per cycle, and Explosive Blast hitting its target cap can deal 14.4 DS per cycle. Slotting minimally for recharge we should be able to get at least two torrents and two EBs into that 23 second window (fractionally more torrents) which means 48 DS can be delivered by AoEs in that timeframe, burning about 6.3 seconds of Arcanatime. That leaves about 16.7 seconds of single target damage at 1 DS per second, or about 16 DS. Total damage in 23 seconds is about 64 DS.
So Nova only does 22% more damage than Energy Blast could do by ignoring it and just humming along with regular attacks, and that is assuming Nova hits its target cap of 16 targets. If you aren't going to hit at least 12 targets with Nova, you might actually be better off not using it and using your regular attacks instead, assuming you can still fit comparable numbers into torrent and EB.
So from the perspective of "how much damage does Nova deliver" vs "how much damage does it take away by crashing" Nova is "balanced" around hitting 12 targets, assuming you think Nova is only supposed to do as well as your normal attacks do. If you think its supposed to actually be *better* than your normal attacks, you had better hit more than 12, or be really crappy with using your normal AoEs.
So to recap: based on its recharge Nova doesn't do enough damage. Based on its endurance costs out of the entire range of possibilities that would be reasonable Nova does almost the worst possible level of damage. Based on its opportunity cost due to the crash (and its own activation time) it only breaks even with normal Energy Blast attacks if it hits 12 or more targets, and at best it only provides a 20% premium over normal attacks at the target cap. And based on what its net results are in-game verses even con critters it can't even reliably defeat Lts. And without BU and Aim it won't even *usually* defeat Lts.
Do I want the crash removed? No. I want the power to be worthy of a crash. And the numbers say that there's lots of head room to buff the damage without doing anything game-breaking, and both the normal balance rules and normal in-game analysis of its situational use suggest its too low given its usage. If analysis says its too low, and there's no game-breaking limit holding it down, that tells me its a reasonable buff candidate.
Is there *any* reason why Nova or other crashing nukes might be considered too strong to buff? Perhaps. This analysis won't necessarily work for Blizzard: Blizzard is far stronger than most nukes and it was buffed at a time when players strongly devalued DoT. And there are team situations where you can mitigate the crash entirely and buff recharge to the point where blasters in the team can fire nukes almost continuously. But are those reasons to keep the power weaker than it should be for all other circumstances? In my opinion no. -
Quote:All true IF YOU DECIDE TO STOP SUBSCRIBING.Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
I have discovered that despite over 33 months of veteran time, fully paid, I will be losing access to 6 archetypes that I previously had access to.
I have discovered that, apparently, I will even lose access to the characters I have already made that are of those archetypes.
I have discovered that I will have to pay a pseudo-subscription "license" just to "rent" the invention system or AE.
I have discovered that purchasing that "license", or not, will still not allow me to benefit from any invention origin set bonuses.
I have discovered that the "licenses" can be avoided, and I can get back partially systems which I already have, by subscribing for approximately another year after Freedom goes live to unlock the remaining Paragon Rewards tiers.
If you decide to stop subscribing now, you lose access to EVERYTHING. In Freedom, you'll lose access to SOME THINGS.
Why, why, WHY do so many people think that when Freedom comes around, we're all supposed to get everything for free. SUBSCRIBERS lose NOTHING. People who STOP SUBSCRIBING lose some things because THEY ARE NO LONGER SUBSCRIBING.
All you seem to be saying is you expected to stop paying your subscription and get everything you wanted for free, and now you've decided to stop paying your subscription and not play instead. You know what? I'm ok with that "change" in decision. Somehow, I think NCSoft is fine with it also.Quote:I'm letting my time run out and not coming back unless there are some major changes to make me feel welcome and my money feel wanted rather than demanded. -
Quote:No, I think Lothic has it closer to the truth. The study didn't even get to the heart of its own thesis, which is do spoilers actually spoil ANYTHING. They only asked the tangential question "do people like stories when they know the ending more, in general, than when they don't?" That doesn't answer the question: is there something about the surprise ending that people enjoy, that spoilers destroy?Originally Posted by Durakken
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you are trying to write or create something that will not be predictable and be a huge surprise you will fail almost always and those who can really tell will be the most immune to such trite surface writing. That conclusion/surprise is worthless. it's why M Night sucks so horribly. He thinks adding a surprise is going to make something great what it just betrays how bad a writer is.
When I say, He was dead all along, that ruins that story because that story is built on that surprise and pretty much nothing else... it the least problematic of his works and he got worse with it as it goes on. You "spoil" the twist and his movies and we as viewers recognize this instantly and say it sucks no matter how good or bad the rest of the movie was. Because while the surprise was pleasurable it's relying on being surprising and not so much in WHY it's surprising.
Now on the other hand when you write a story from what you would call the "experienced" phase you write so that the entire story builds and the surprise is not a monster jumping out at you, but rather the surprise is when you figure it all out and see how it comes together. You then read again because you ant to affirm your thoughts and such and as you go you discover new things and start thinking in new ways thus creating a wave of surprises and that increases your understanding and pleasure overall.
I'm also sure the survey was taken immediately after reading, which means the survey ignored the process of integrating the ending. Its easy to poo-poo Shyamalan now that he's beaten his own style into the dirt, but The Sixth Sense is actually masterful in understanding the nature of the surprise ending. We call it a "twist" ending, but The Sixth Sense isn't actually engineered as a twist ending, its more of the "makes sense in retrospect" ending, which makes it a lot more powerful than a simple surprise twist. The flashback sequence at the end is the visual representation of the realization the audience should make (and some in the audience do and others need the memory assistance) that the story always seemed a little off kilter, but in a way you couldn't put your finger on. The ending is the surprise ending hiding in plain sight, and to be honest while I think some people watch movies with a certain cynical attitude that makes them immune to surprises, or storytelling period, most of the people today who claim to have seen it coming all along are either lying or self-deceiving themselves.
For most people, it takes time to integrate a "twist" ending, and revisit the story in their minds. It can prompt them to reread, or at least skim the story again to ultimately integrate that ending. And that process was likely skipped in the study.
Rewatching the Sixth Sense after knowing the ending provides a completely different perspective with which to enjoy the movie. This second experience might even be more satisfying - more "hedonistically enjoyable" but that doesn't mean anyone who had the ending spoiled didn't miss out on an equally interesting experience.
Shyamalan's later works tend increasingly to make the surprise a literal twist rather than the retrospective twist, and also when you're known for doing surprise endings you can't surprise anyone anymore. But this notion that actual "surprises" don't work, and its just a matter of realization of the conclusion, is extremely simplistic. The Most Dangerous Game is known specifically for its build up to the ending, where the ending is delayed as long as literally possible. Its an ending that can be spoiled, and it is something that is unknown and unpredictable to the reader, but it isn't a classical surprise or twist. Its literally an unknown that the story builds towards, such that spoiling it takes something away from the story.
Its entirely possible the entire study was invalid due to a simple, but important error. Imagine you're trying to determine if, say, people enjoy watching porn more before having sex or after. So you have one set of couples have sex then watch a porn movie, and another set watch a porn movie then have sex. Then you survey them and ask if they liked the movie, and the couples in the first group say "sure" and the couples in the second group are too out of breath to answer your question so you assume the answer is no.
I'll bet that was a surprise ending to this post. -
Quote:Well, although the poll said "vote your top ten favorite" it claimed to be aiming for a top 100 best science fiction ever written, and so I decided to vote based on different criteria for "best" and "historical importance" is an important consideration: the degree to which the works were inspiration or influence on science fiction as a whole. I think there's no question that Brave New World, 1984, and Fahrenheit (in about that order) were extremely influential works, whether they were anyone's particular "favorite" especially in contemporary times.Originally Posted by TrueMetal
I think a lot of people reason this way, and that it is exactly the reason why this sort of lists always look like this. Going by another forum I frequent (one about books) there aren't that many people who think 1984 and fahrenheit are their top 10 of books they enjoyed the most. But they always tend to end up in the top 10 they voted for anyway because of the 'historical importance' of those books.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, people should vote as they see fit. It's just something I noticed.
If the poll was clearly aiming for top 100 most entertaining, most engaging, or most popular works and they asked me to pick my personal favorites in that context, those three would have dropped off my list, and probably the entire list. -
Quote:According to my calculations, it 861 mitigated, 1722 emitted, before counting Destiny. With Destiny, I would just cross the line.Originally Posted by Werner
And so using Aid Self your SR is very likely at 2000+ DPS emitted, 1000+ DPS mitigated/healed. That isn't survivable in practice, but is with a perfect stream of damage and perfect timing.
Dark was the third of three possibilities I thought could generate numbers this high, although I didn't think a Dark Scrapper could go that high. I forgot about that soft-capped Kat/DA build though.Quote:Oversimplifying, my Katana/Dark regenerates and heals 155 DPS on top of soft-capped defense and 54% weighted damage resistance without Barrier. 155 / ((50%-45%)*(100%-54%)) = 6739 DPS emitted, or 3370 DPS damage mitigated/healed
Here are the full calculations for that and for my final proposed build from the top end Katana/Regen build thread.
The problem with Dark is while all average calculations have to be taken with a little grain of salt when examined under extreme damage conditions, the assumption we can get a 100% heal every time Dark Regen fires (or at least for the 95% of the time it will hit) has to be taken with a larger grain of salt than normal, and the sensitivity to statistical bursts in damage is much higher than normal.
I do concede, though, that within the terms being discussed that is a 3370 dps build. -
Quote:In the context of the discussion in this thread, I was referring to the statement that referred to a regen scrapper "taking" 1000 dps, so I was using the "damage taken based on 0% defense and 0% resistance" definition for discussion purposes.Originally Posted by Werner
We seriously MUST be defining 1000 DPS builds significantly differently.
I would need to review the calculations, but just FYI the regeneration *cap* for a Regen scrapper is about 301 h/s, and that means the absolute best case sustainable damage level for a soft-capped regen scrapper is something not too far from about 3010 dps. At this level of regen the total heal from reconstruction and dull pain would not shift the numbers much, and no one with any amount of incarnate powers and recharge buffs ends up with more than this level of health recovery on average: 301 h/s. The way I normally calculate survivability is by intrinsic damage output, so normally I would call this a 6000 dps survivability case. But its unbuildable.Quote:On paper (though certainly not in practice), my Katana/Dark will be an 8400 DPS build once I get my tier 4s. Against the incarnate soft cap, he's still 6600 DPS. Even with what I think your definition of DPS is, that's still a 3300 DPS Scrapper. How about Regeneration? The highest score from the recent high end Katana/Regen thread was about a 5500 DPS scrapper against the incarnate soft cap, or 2750 or so your way. Now, it doesn't work that way in practice. At those levels of incoming damage, discrete effects are probably MUCH more significant than these sorts of average survivability calculations. So the true survivability will be lower. But 1/2 that? 1/3 that?
Another data point: I have this Stone build I've been toying with making. It has 90% resistance to s/l/f/c, and is better than soft capped to s/l/f/c/e/n. While EE is up, this build has 67 h/s recovery. I think this is approaching the absolute limits of what you can build for solo, and it is essentially a 6700 dps build by the 0/0 perspective, and 13400 dps build by the intrinsic damage output perspective. I find it difficult to believe that scrapper builds, judged on a similar calculation system, can get anywhere near 10000 dps.
Good question. Probably not as much as you might think. I mean, in relative terms they do a ton of damage compared to most other things in the game, but in terms of the kinds of numbers we're talking about. Lets see, the Lattice is essentially a level 50 monster class critter. It has two attacks: Foot Stomp and Crystal Shards. Foot Stomp does 1.32 melee damage and Crystal Shards does 1.84 ranged damage. The damage mods for a level 50 monster are about 525 ranged and 875 melee. So Foot Stomp does about 1155 damage every 8.1 seconds (at most: critters do not use their powers as fast as possible). Crystal Shards does 966 about every 9 seconds at most. That's a total of 250 dps total emitted (not landed) from the Lattice, maximum. Given the current AI, the true number is probably a little closer to 230 dps.Quote:In the evidence column, how much DPS do the monster island monsters do? On an earlier iteration of my build with what I calculate as around 6000 DPS survivability, I rounded up 4 and survived for about 10 minutes, then grabbed another two and survived another three or five minutes or something before they finally put me down. I didn't record it. I was just curious. It was my one and only go at it.
Doing the same calculations for the Quarry, I get 1155 damage every 8.1 seconds for fault, and 861 damage every 11.83 seconds for hurl boulder, for a total of 215 dps. My guess is all the monster island giant monsters are in the 200-250 dps range. That's emitted, not landed. So to be in the "1000 dps club" as I used the term upstream, you should be able to tank about eight of them.
I think my math is correct there, although its late and I'm going to sleep before triple checking. Anyone who wants to take a swim out to the island can try to double check my figures. But they feel consistent with the monster testing I've done in the past with other builds of mine. I calculate my SR being able to tank about 776 dps of emitted damage without resorting to aid self, but with the caveat that with so much mitigation tied up in defense, random unlucky bursts will make that level of damage not really survivable in the long run. It should look like it could be, except for the unlucky couple of hits in a row. That's kind of what it looks like when I try to tank 2, but 3 tends to unravel a bit faster. That range - about 500 - 700 dps - feels about right for a defensive build that on paper averages about 770 dps of sustainable damage. The fact its coming in a few gigantic bursts is what ultimately causes the true survivability to diverge from the average.
I probably need to re-examine your survival calculations to see where your 6000+ numbers come from. I don't doubt your calculations themselves, but I don't think they can mean the same thing that mine do. Unless I've done something really wrong here, that number implies at least on paper being able to tank the aggro cap of monster island denizens with plenty of room to spare. -
Quote:That was somewhat of a rhetorical question. The point is that some people like yourself have one answer that involves differentiating alts in your mind, and other people, and probably far too many, have another answer that involves playing another game entirely.Originally Posted by Tenzhi
Because everything I want for one character is usually not everything I want for a different character. Hence why they are different characters.
There's absolutely no question in my mind that CO would have more players if it didn't jettison archetypes. That doesn't mean it was the wrong idea: there's a place for different games with different ideas, and the people who want what CO offers deserve to have an MMO just as much as the people who like archetypes in CoH do. But there's absolutely no question in my mind that the people who thought archetypes were arbitrary limitations that were unambiguously bad for the game were epically wrong.