Arcanaville
-
Posts
10683 -
Joined
-
Quote:Well yeah, but I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that if as previously discussed some players use the markets by attempting to leverage them to at least some degree, but others simply use them as a store with no regard to attempting to leverage their player-to-player properties, those two segments of the player population would likely be discontinuous. The notion that everyone has the same "opportunities" to make influence isn't really relevant to the case where many people opt out of most of them or don't even know they exist.Originally Posted by TopDoc
Cheaters. -
Quote:I wouldn't do it, because I want to keep as many MA powers as possible, but if the devs agreed with Grey Pilgrim that DT wasn't appropriate, Caltrops seems to be a logical choice as an alternative power for that slot, perhaps with some set reshuffling.Originally Posted by Premonitions
Now that I thin about it, MA being sort of the opposite of Devices makes sense
I still want caltrops though.
-
Quote:The idea was to keep as many MA powers as possible, so Dragon's tail was going to stay. In fact, starting from the list of MA powers:Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim
I like Arcana's suggestions for the set. Good mix of damage and control and has a good/different flavor from other secondaries. I might possibly quibble with Dragon's Tail, as that seems a bit over the top or more melee AOE than I want for a Blaster, especially with Spring Escape, but I have no clue what I would put there instead.
Thunder Kick
Storm Kick
Crane Kick
Cobra Strike
CAK
Warriors Challenge
Focus Chi
Dragon's Tail
Eagle's Claw
Its obvious Challenge goes, and Focus Chi stays. I felt that DT and EC were the "signature moves" of the set in terms of what it looks like, and so they had to stay. I also felt that Cobra was an easy thing to keep and as the only punch (back when I first did this exercise) it was also essential to keep. Crane Kick seems to be such a good analog for Power Thrust and there's no ranged immobilize in the set, so that seemed another obvious power to keep.
That meant I was keeping Crane Kick, Cobra Strike, Focus Chi, Dragon's Tail, and Eagle's Claw. That seemed to keep enough of the flavor of the set that I could still call it a Martial Arts variant. I wanted the set to have both melee utility and ranged utility, and there's plenty melee in there, so the powers I added tended to focus on adding range utility. Even spring escape is a ranged utility power even though it deals damage in a PBAoE, because its intended to work as described: to spring out of trouble in a very blasterish sort of way: kaboom, and now I'm far away. Of course, you don't have to use it that way: you could spring escape to the same spot you're standing on, just as spring attack can be used now. -
Quote:That is in fact exactly the thought process I initially had for the power, and I think that thought process still holds up today. I put -range in there because I think that KB + -range is the better analog to ranged immobilize than just KB + let them shoot you.Originally Posted by Winterminal
The way Arcanaville presented Crane Kick was actually the cross between Power Thrust and every other T1 immobilization save for Web Grenade (no damage there) and Ring of Fire (which of course has extra fire damage). The 1 DS matches Subdual, ChilBlain, Penumbral Grasp, and Electric Fence, while the 6s recharge is consistent with Power Thrust and, probably as you say, to compensate for the extra damage potential of the set later in its career. Also, with recharge being what it is, that attack could quickly become available every 3 seconds, and make it a decent part of an attack chain.
I'm just inferring based on number observations, though. -
Quote:Actually, we need to give Star Wars an additional 14 years before it reaches the longevity of the Avengers.Originally Posted by Lothic
Again I'll grant you that the Avengers movies are very good and once it's all said and done they'll probably be able to say that as a complete franchise it made billions of dollars. Still not going to declare it on par with Star Wars, sorry.
Let's give Avengers another 30+ years when we're arguing about Loki ragdolling Hulk in the latest director's cut before we grant it that status shall we?
-
Although I was aware they were the same actor, I was still (pleasantly) surprised that this:
eventually became this:
and he:
became him:
-
Jackie Chan did stunts in real life that made Agents in the Matrix go "screw that."
Quote:As he says in the article, he likes action but doesn't like hard core violence. That would tend to draw him towards slapstick as the appropriate venue for action without serious violence.Originally Posted by Lucky666
Maybe he is just a natural goofball so was drawn to those roles who knows. -
I'm not sure I'm ever exactly bored, but sometimes I've been known to do odd things. Other times, I just sit back and let the game entertain me. Occasionally I like to admire the attention to detail our devs have put into the environment. And when I think I've seen it all I can always count on the fact that our devs are a bunch of closet perverts.
I hope it never gets to the point when I start doing weird things. -
Quote:Using then in earlier powers does potentially free slots for use in later powers. But it does suggest an alternative.Originally Posted by Void_Huntress
At 25, 27, and 29, you would be limited to a very specific subset of your career powers for allocating these super slots. At best, this excludes your primary tier 9, your secondary tier 8 and tier 9, and your epics.
It's a fascinating idea, though, and has intriguing possibilities for build variation. I'm just not sure if limiting them to powers you've obtained by your late 20s is necessarily a good idea. I don't know that it's a bad one, mind you, but that deserves careful consideration.
What if you got one at 15, one at 25, and one at 35 but you didn't need to use them then? Suppose they were awarded like special salvage, and worked like enhancement boosters worked, only they affected the slot and not the enhancement in the slot. And suppose they could be reallocated upon a respec. Would that then be good enough to replace having three extra slots?
I should probably state that I think no power should be allowed to have more than one of these. -
Quote:Think of how much longer it could have been on the air if they had decided to find its Story first, and then tried to make a tv show about that story second.Originally Posted by Desi_Nova
They killed Stargate Universe just as it was finding it's Story.
-
On the subject of getting more slots. I suspect the devs are trying to figure out whether its possible with reasonable effort to untangle the way slots and powers unlock in the game, but suppose its not possible. I wonder if an interesting counter-proposal is that at level 25, 27, and 29, you were given the ability to designate one slot, any slot in any power, as a special "double slot." Anything slotted into that slot would have twice the enhancement strength effect, ignoring things like procs and other special effects. In effect, the power would have the *strength* of two slots for the price of one. The trade off is that on the one hand, you don't have to slot two separate enhancements: you get twice the strength with one. But on the other hand, you don't get the flexibility of having two real slots.
But because this doesn't change actual slotting, it doesn't mess up the level unlocking code. It overlays a special behavior on top of the slots and powers unlocks that shouldn't disrupt it. It would just be behind the scenes calculations on the calculated effects of what's in that slot.
Three double-strength slots instead of three extra slots. Interesting enough to be worth exploring? What if I threw in a kicker that any set IO slotted into those superslots would be worth two enhancements for set bonus calculation purposes? Worth exploring then? -
Quote:Actually, Hot feet does have a mag 3 afraid effect. In that respect Another_Fan is correct. Afraid is not the same thing as Terrorize. Terrorize is the effect commonly referred to by players as "fear" in fear powers. Afraid is a totally different effect: it is an effect that induces critter AI to run away from a target. We don't normally consider it a mez because it doesn't act as any of the traditional effects referred to by players as "mez." For example, Longbow Eagle's (the flying ones) actually have a self-afraid aura power they cast on themselves. Kinda like invincibility: when a player enters the PBAoE range of the aura, it causes the power to buff the critter with afraid instead of defense. And that causes the critter to move away from the player. We don't usually say that the Eagle mezzed themselves, though.Originally Posted by PsychicKitty
mag 3 afraid...um no.....it doesnt have that effect...it has the effect of making enemies not want to be in the effect sometimes.....becasue it has a slow effect to it and it does damage.
If it had afraid effect on it then you could easily use things that cause fear to stack easier but it doesnt...also it doesnt effect all targets...thus why for example on a warwolf you dont see them running away or cowering becasue they are immune to slow....and an affraid effect would be very noticable on them....another immune to the slowing are the magmites.....thus again....if there was an afraid effect they wouldnt get in your face and still smack you.
The damage though like caltrops and damage auras does cause enemies to not want to be in the effect....but thats definately not an affraid effect.
Note: in the old days, as in at release, Fear did induce Afraid, or a form of it. The mechanics of terrorize were added significantly after release. And the reason was that afraid as mitigation effect was considered basically worthless. It would only help if you induced a long enough Afraid to cause them to run completely out of range, and back then the spectral terror could cause critters to run so far away they actually deaggroed. Which is technically damage mitigation, but very problematic mitigation.
Afraid is what the devs would call a "boolean state." The mez effects are generally also boolean states, but so are other things like Fly. Fly is the state of flying, and powers that ground you apply -Fly. When players or devs talk about mez effects, powers that affect or effect mez, or situations involving mez, they generally refer to the standard mez effects of hold, sleep, stun, terrorize, confuse, immobilize, and sometimes intangible, taunt, and placate. And as a special case, knockback and knockup. KB and KU are very special cases because while they are boolean states, no one is actually "in" those states for any particular length of time. KB and KU are not handled by the mez system of the game, in fact, but rather by the physics engine and animation engines of the game. In fact, being "knocked" is not an actual player state: it is the act of being stuck in a knockback animation that the animation engine will not allow you to interrupt. -
Quote:I specified it to deal 0.9 DS damage in the post.Originally Posted by PsychicKitty
I still think the Blinding Powder On a blaster should actualy do damage
It is intended to be a conversion of MA to a Blaster manipulation set, so yes, its a secondary.Quote:I assume this is a secondary
That was a tricky one. There is no real Martial Arts equivalent to a ranged immobilize - or really a ranged anything - but the obvious analog for a blaster manipulation set is adapting Crane Kick into a Power Thrust analog. I wanted the set to have as many actual MA powers or similar powers as possible or else what's the point. But that then left the question of range. Most blaster secondaries have some limited range. Converting Blinding Powder into a damaging cone was an obvious choice, but I felt the set needed one more ranged effect of some kind. I also did not want to simply replicate energy melee but with kicks. And the obvious choice most people stick in there is caltrops but I wanted something different. By giving it Crane Kick and a ranged immobilize early, I felt I was giving the set an interesting early tactical option of CK->immobilize. I thought that would certainly distinguish it from Energy Manipulation.Quote:Also the siphon chi thing which is like lectric fence.....if you follow the typical pattern you wouldnt have that at 2...you only get a target immobolize with range or a push away power from point blank range if you are following the pattern of the sets at level 1 for blasters. So you wouldnt have a duplicate of that similar effect and would only have either or.....like energy for example doesnt have that immobolize..becasue it has the push away power....
So in this case i would more likely expect to see caltrops at the second choice....as that would be the more normal for blaster set secondarys -
Quote:It depends on your point of view. *Ultimate* control over price falls to the bidders. If they don't bid, sellers can't sell period. However, if you presume that bidders have a higher need to buy than sellers have to sell, a buyer can be compelled to buy at the lowest price that executes in a reasonable amount of time. A market manipulator can increase that lowest possible price in a number of ways.Originally Posted by seebs
I'm having a really time understanding how one could "make" people pay any price for anything if they aren't willing to. If I think something costs too much, I do something else instead -- either get a cheaper thing, or manufacture it in some way instead of paying that much. I leave a ton of low bids up on stuff I know I'll want, come back a month later, and have stuff.
The most obvious is by strategies that involve exploiting the fact that most people don't know what things are intrinsically worth in global terms. What the "correct" price for something is, is itself a complex question involving market history, supply and demand, data the average player doesn't possess. What they do have is the transaction history. So if someone buys up all the supply of something that exists and then relists it for a higher price, buyers have no choice but to pay that price or wait indefinitely. And buy "painting the tape" with transactions at high prices, you can eliminate the history of the item ever being offered at a lower price. The combination of the player no longer knowing what the item used to be sold as, and their desier to acquire the item relatively quickly, can compel them to buy the item at a much higher price than they would have before the market manipulator arrived.
Whether you call this "making" people pay your price or not is a matter of perspective. -
Quote:A possibility I think worth considering is that you may have reached different Pareto ratios from different analyses because the influence distribution is actually a set of overlapping populations that treat influence sufficiently differently that they don't comprise a singular distribution with a single operating function. Different analyses may have seen different signals as a result. That could explain how the survey was log normal but with a much different Pareto parameter than the one that better fits the extrapolated account analysis. Perhaps everyone who treats influence similarly forms a log normal distribution that roughly obeys Pareto, but different groups of players that treat it radically differently obey different parameters.Originally Posted by FourSpeed
Basically, I'm settling my estimates in at about 150 Trillion (+-50T) for an active
population base of ~75,000 (+-25K) active accounts with Pareto at ~90/10
for several reasons outlined below:
1> Published Dev Numbers of 12 Trillion for just scrappers along with popularity
of AT's (from BABs) suggesting about 13% of AT's are scrappers amongst a published
account base of at least 500K accounts / 43M toons.
I have assumed that the scrapper number is *only* counting inf actually on characters
(the easiest way to actually datamine it with a very simple SQL query).
That sets a plausible inf floor of ~90 Trillion across all AT's.
2> Observed number of outstanding Market Bids that could reasonably be used
to store influence. That number is ~30,000 currently, which means, at most,
there could be as much as 60 Trillion stored there (if every one of those bids was
2B - pretty unlikely). It's very probably *much* lower.
I used 30 Trillion (ie. the avg of 0T - 60T)
This adjusts the plausible floor to 90T-150T, but it also limits the ceiling as well
due to simple storage limit issues.
3> Statistical behaviour of free, unconstrained, income earning/distribution systems,
which typically have a log-normal distribution across the population (a bell curve
when plotted on a log scale) and generally follow Pareto (The 80/20 Rule).
4> Results from the actual survey I conducted a few months back. While it involved
a very small number of respondents, it did (imho) give plausible evidence of following
Pareto (88/28), and it definitely plotted out as a log-normal distribution, which adds
support that point #3 may well apply to CoH's income system as well.
5> A LOT of dabbling with spreadsheet(s) I have made while conducting the survey
and analyzing its results. In summary, keeping the patterns from point #3, and the
relative distribution ratios from point #4, I can model in-game inf for a given
population of accounts. The only results that don't end up being bizarre, or contradictory,
occur when population is between 50K-100K, total-inf is between 100T-200T,
and Pareto is ~90/10. At 75K, it comes out to 143T with Pareto at 93/11.
So, is the 90/10 Pareto explainable? Maybe, if you consider the specialized knowledge
a player needs to make Billions (ie. Market info, how to circumvent the 2B limit,
use of various merits to make inf, crafting, memorized recipes, etc.).
All of the survey respondents (and avid forum readers) have easy access to that
information. The game's population at large? Maybe not, and that *may* be enough
to skew the distribution into the 90/10 Pareto range across the whole group.
In the survey, the largest category for respondents was 1B-10B per *account*.
In my 150T/75K/90-10 model, the largest category is 10M-100M per account,
something that was actually achievable even in I-1 pre-market days.
Are they correct? No idea tbh. But they come closest to making sense given
the data we have (imho). YMMV
Regards,
4
That would be an interesting thing to be able to demonstrate, because I've wondered since almost the release of the markets if the market, as defined by its player to player transactions, formed a single scale-invariant network, or if it was more properly described as a set of loosely connected networks. -
Quote:Technically, SR has the scaling passives. Whether an extra 10% matters or not is a matter of opinion, but an SR tanker that takes tough would have significant potential s/l resistance to stack with that.Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
2) It doesn't have resistance to stack with the +10%, making that significantly less useful
You could also make the case that the end discount in staff could make it easier to run tough in the first place (albeit these are non-concurrent benefits).
Perhaps SR is not the best primary for Staff for a Tanker, but Staff might be a decent primary for SR with its optional features of end discount, +regeneration, and +resistance. -
It took a while to find, but I dug up my MA for blasters suggestion from 2006. I've updated it a bit to take into account game changes since then. It basically looks like this with the updates:
1. Crane Kick: animation as MA, 1.0 DS 6s rech 100% KB -90% range for 6s
2. Siphon Chi: effects as electric fence, plus 40% chance for +5% end to caster
3. Cobra Strike: as MA
4. Focus Chi: as MA
5. Blinding Powder: as Ninjitsu, but 0.9 DS and 45s recharge
6. Disrupt Chi: 15 foot radius PBAoE -10% res for 20s, 40% chance for 8 second stun, 90s recharge
7. Spring Escape: as Spring Jump, but effects occur at the origin not the target
8. Dragon's Tail: as MA
9. Eagle's Strike: animation as MA, 3.56 DS 20s rech 100% KD
Cobra used to be CAK, but Cobra makes more sense now. Disrupt Chi used to do something different, and the biggest swap is Spring Escape, stealing the mechanics of Spring Attack: it used to be a PBAoE stun/repel. I moved the stun to Disrupt Chi. -
Quote:Stratonexus has it correct but I would word it differently: changing a click to a toggle is the sort of change the cottage rule says never to do unless there is a balance-significant change that is required and there appears to be no other way to effect that change within the parameters the devs are making the change in. So changing it doesn't so much violate the cottage rule as force the dev making the change to justify why it *doesn't* violate the rule, by providing a reason why the change is necessary.Originally Posted by Hesh
Arcanaville - Just cuz your wording confused me a little, are you saying changing a click to a toggle or the other way around is a violation of the cottage rule or is allowed by it?
In the case of instant healing the change was necessary to satisfy the devs' intent that the power not be used all the time without regard to its cost - they learned people don't balance endurance costs for toggles, they either reduce them to the point they don't matter or they get so high the toggle becomes too expensive to use at all. -
Quote:I have said nothing about what people might want to do in the future. I have only said what people are likely to have done in the past.Originally Posted by BrainBrillo
Also, some of them might like the ability to go back and forth. My girlfriend has a blast juggling people with her Sonic/EB defender, and it'd be nice if she could also do more than buff when running Minds of Mayhem.
Yes, I realize that the only way the currently discussed enhancement could be used to go back and forth is by making multiple builds, but both myself and other posters had raised the idea of making this a Null the Gull option. -
Quote:lm nf09 podm f sp fwjmlm,'sd mlolocvm;l poamkSD POkd mksd vmpm powvipowj gfjkamsdkfm dm vlopo fjofkmpaosdmkfpok mdvOriginally Posted by Another_Fan
This is how you get incredibly funny situations like Arcanavile boasting of starting the trillionaire trend when its been around for a very long time.
-
Quote:I don't believe I have ever heard of anyone refer to Afraid as a mez before. Until now.Originally Posted by Another_Fan
Hot feet is an AoE mag 3 afraid that can be left running.
In a thread brainstorming about a powerset that currently doesn't exist, that's an interesting thing to attempt to assert. I'll leave it to others to decide if my perspective on hypothetical powersets is worth discussion.Quote:I'd go into the rest but its nothing but your unsupported opinion. You are certainly entitled to it, but absent facts to support it there is nothing to talk about. -
Quote:Actually, that's not quite true: Marvel can't lose trademark rights by failing to sue an MMO play or another company that happens to use them. The law only requires you to defend your trademark against infringing use which requires the use in a business context. Essentially, NCSoft would have had to use trademark protected images in sales or marketing materials to be infringing. Which may be why the trademark related elements of the lawsuit were dismissed early.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Also, as far as losing rights to trademarked characters goes. No one was saying that there is a chance in hell Marvel was going to lose the rights to Captain America or Iron Man, they are too iconic and they have both appeared too recently to possibly fit the non use rul in trademark law.
However, there are literally hundreds of lesser Marvel characters that have not appeared in any media in more than 5 years. 5 years is the cut-off point for the non-use clause in trademark laws to take effect. It is quite literally a "use it or lose" it deal. If you hold a trademark and do not use it for anything for a certain length of time, it is possible that anyone who uses it other than you will be awarded the rights to it.
A character like Trapster (AKA Paste Pot Pete), an almost forgotten Marvel B-List villain is a good example. He has not made an appearance in any Marvel publication in at least 15 years. The trademark rights to that character could very easily fall into the "non use" crack in trademark law.
Marvel wasn't the slightest bit worried about its flagship characters, no judge on Earth is going to award the rights to Spider-Man to a video game company because someone made a copy of him.
But they had a valid reason to be concerned about losing some of its B and C listers that haven't been used in a while. And all they had to do to protect them was file a lawsuit. Whether they won or lost the suit itself, the act of filing it counts as defending their trademarks, and it would be a LOT harder for a third party to win the rights from them.
That's why George Lucas hasn't lost all his trademark rights to Star Wars due to fan sites and fan created works. He's not required to aggressively defend his trademarks in those areas because in none of those cases are any of his trademarks used in a manner that could possibly confuse someone into thinking that George Lucas doesn't still own Star Wars and every midichlorine in it.
As to losing trademark rights through disuse: while that can happen, in the case of trademarks related to fictional characters, the copyrights associated with those characters still exist so even if Marvel were to lose the trademarks associated with the character of the Trapster, no one else could recreate those trademarks in a way that violates the copyright protection on that character and his appearance. I could sell a mousetrap called The Trapster with the same font and color scheme as a trademark the character once had as a title if that trademark somehow expired, but I could not make a fictional character called The Trapster that resembled that character in any way regardless of whether trademark protection existed for the specific name and title.
(Actually, I could probably sell a mousetrap called The Trapster whether the trademark protection existed or not, unless the Marvel villain's superpower was catching mice: trademark protection only extends to the specific business areas the mark is registered for use in and use in other areas that could not reasonably be confused with the registered uses is considered non-infringing.) -
Quote:Fire Manipulation does not have an AoE mez.Originally Posted by Another_Fan
As opposed to fire ?
immobilize
AoE mez/damage aura
Endurance recovery power
Minor Mez protection power (Not as useful as it used to be but still nice)
Self damage to hit buff ?
In survivability terms, Fire Manipulation has the lowest amount of survivability tools of any existing Blaster manipulation set, and probably has a lower amount of survivability tools than any manipulation set ever proposed by anyone. Historically, its been consistently considered the most problematic blaster powerset, primary or secondary, for that reason.
As to Martial Arts as the basis for a Blaster secondary, I have often wondered if the reason we don't have that yet is because the devs have shelved the idea until they can come up with an idea for its ranged analog. They've ported primaries without analogous secondaries (i.e. Archery) but given the devs' general attachment to thematics, I can't help but think that a Martial Arts secondary would be greatly accelerated if there was a thematically related Blaster primary, whatever that might be (and yes, I know anyone can make a case for it being one of the existing primaries, like dual pistols or archery). -
Quote:The thing is though that the psychology of reward vs aversion isn't just applicable to hard core players, but to everyone. There isn't a dichotomy of hardcore players and everyone else: there is a continuum of players with different thresholds of game play intensity. Eliminating all of the negative feedback from a game (which arguably would no longer make it a game, but that's a different discussion) doesn't make it a game that addresses the concerns of casual players, or even a wider audience: it makes it address a single point at the far extreme left of that continuum.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
And that's the problem - these kinds of games are not for every type of audience. As the game market expands and video games become a more widely-accepted form of entertainment, they start attracting people who aren't at all consistent with the hardcore competitive gamers of old, but are instead those looking for relaxing entertainment.
Consider the games with more players than any conventional MMO: Farmville and its social gaming bretheren. Even they tend to have both negative feedback (crops can die and invested resources lost) and competitive aspects (arguably its revenue comes mainly from players' competitive impulses, either against friends or against themselves). Given the enormous audience for social games such as those, the notion that the widest gaming audience is looking for something with the absolute minimum of either competitive elements or negative feedback seems shaky. Its *different* than those elements in a classic MMO, and channeled differently, but its also clearly very strong components of games with enormously wide audiences. -
Quote:Nope, still don't get it. Is this in ascii, or should I be reading this in a Unicode set of some kind? Because this sounds like it says that when Paragon Studios says "the item could be almost anything" there are a long list of items it should not be, or else the description is either misleading or disappointing.Originally Posted by Power Armour
But then to get an inspiration when the exact wording in the announcement was "The item could be almost anything currently available in the Paragon Market," it didn't inspire me to make sure I'm always logged in of a Thursday night.
But that can't be right.