Chase_Arcanum

so is saying it is "not reflected in the actual experiences..." part. Much more broad.

Do they HAVE TO offer a subscription? Of course not, but offering a sub plan that meets the user expectations for Pre-F2P access to content, levels, and resources is consistent with what we see in all the other recent migrations. We DO have one account of technical changes that impact large-group activities very badly in one MMO, but we have another game by that same vendor without those same restrictions and we have another fantasy game that didn't require such hurdles at all, so there's nothing to suggest that it would apply anywhere but that one instance.

There it is! I'd lost that link... was working on some of my characters info offline then couldn't find it. Thanks!

/em facepalm.

Wish I'd thought of that.

First time I did it, I didn't pay attention to the status bar. Wife and I were idling around, sightseeing... checking stuff out until, "OMGWTFBBQ-- there's some sort of friggin timer up there!" Obviously, it didn't result in a mission failed, but for some insane reason, I had this mental image that I'd leave only to come back to an entrance full of all the ambush spawns....

Ditto. I hadn't heard about those gating techniques. It sounds like a tech limitation they put in place to minimize the $$ burden of the Freebies by mitigating sever load and traffic info. Unfortunate. I was interested in checking out that one, but really couldn't afford enough online time to justify another sub.


Note that while that issue hit ONE of the MMO's we're talking about, the technique doesn't seem prevalent at one other fantasy MMO's Freebie solution. From what was described, it seems to be Very much a problem with hacking some economy into an existing system.

No judgement on you, just felt in an awkward space myself. My region was hit hard by layoffs more than once in my life and there was always a painful stigma attached to it- you didn't want loved ones to hear from office scuttlebutt before the person had a chance to say anything in person. That extends to re-employment.... there's that feeling that you wait before you relay the news, so he has a chance to tell those he wants in-person first. It's silly here-- he's not going to get a chance to say so in person and I had no clue how recent the change was... I just couldn't get over the hangup.

The night that the news leaked, Babs DID have his status set to Senior Animator at Cryptic Studios as a description, but didn't have a job history with it. Knowing how that site works, it looked like he updated his Paragon data, but never bothered with the general description field.

A few hours afterward, it leaked onto the boards. Babs must've noticed, because it changed... and then later again changed to include things like, "astronaut, nascar racer, international spy."

I took it as his way of acknowledging the fans here & saying bye & it made me admire him all the more for that little gesture...

Good to see its back, and I want to say Gratz to Mr. Bruce. I knew he was too good to escape the evil tendrils of employers for long.

It's not the years, it's the mileage. I'm young enough NOT to remember the moon landing, but my odometer's rolled over more than once already. My warranty is shot & I'm starting to wonder when my wife's gonna look into trading me in for a newer model.

Gopher! Man, that brings back memories!

And if you think that'd confuse the new kids, mention FINGER.

( For the young-uns. It was a protocol that would tell you if someone was logged on to a system (and show a message sig if they'd added one) that caused many an awkward moment. This was back in a time where, if you were lucky, maybe 20% of a university population made use of the Internet (often via Gopher) and less than 5% of the local population did... so the jargon was even less known than we see today.

Imagine the looks from this scenario: sitting at a crowded all-night college diner (before they started calling em "coffee houses") and listening to your friend rant that his girlfriend at another University had an online addiction, "... I mean, I fingered her CONSTANTLY for over four hours last night and she never logged off."

Devil's advocate here... (I was gonna quote the "bless you ClawsandEffect" thread instead). What if they took the path used at least one other recent game giving F2P options and made separate F2P servers? Gives you separation of the two player cultures....

I thought they were talking about Dark_Respite. "Upset about Dark_Respite coming to PvE? Wha? I mean, I know she spends most of her time online making her vids... and time doing PvE means less time making vids or writing superhero romances, but cut her a break. If she wants to toss around some NPC's occasionally, why should we deny her?"

This is something I hadn't thought of. It does add another development hurdle to this-- likely increasing the resources needed to bring it about.

True. for some archetypes, this opens more opportunities than others. No matter how crowd-control oriented I make my superstrength tank, I'd probably be insane to take "char" over foot stomp.

A few were... too few to be considered a pattern, really, and as many detractors point out, the "achievement" is usually nothing more than a willingness to waste free time.

On the other hand, we've had 11 optional booster packs (including the ones associated with the "GvE" or "Mac" editions) since Sept, 2006, so this is hardly a new trend.

1) Three- you're forgetting the "complete collection booster pack."

2) That's not much of a rhetorical question... rhetorical questions are posed for their persuasive effect with no expectation of an answer. Your statement hardly qualifies as a question, let alone holding enough content within for a good persuasive effect. It seems the only thing that it does have is that you'd expect/hope it not be answered :P. (Also, it's "on the HEELS" ) (EDIT: just friendly ribbing, there Obsidious, no offense intended.)


3) As a possible answer: If the option is, "bring in extra revenue and offer additional cool stuff to those willing to pay for it" or "don't bring in revenue and curb development to fit our budget" then I gladly accept the option that gives me the option to pay extra for something I want and otherwise wouldn't get.

If I thought that they were sitting on a pile of money and just asking for more money, I'd be upset. With some understanding on the costs associated with an MMO (and the need to have a REASONABLE return on investment), I know that's not the case.

Batman killed a man in his very first appearance. He also carried a gun (and used it) for a while, as did the (original) Cap... long before Cap/Bucky.

The myth that "real" heroes are so good that they never need to kill is a very damaging one. It's something that idealistic law enforcement officers often aspire to-- and then, after forced into a situation where they do need to use lethal force, they've got to deal with the self-doubt-- they must've done SOMETHING wrong; there must have been SOME other way; they've got to be better and prevent a next time. The doubt and regret can destroy you-- or make you give up believing in all the ideals attached to it.

Reality is that there's only so much you can do to prevent taking a life. When you're positioning yourself to be first responder to an incident, there will be chaotic moments where the only viable action you have to prevent something worse is to take a life. Period. You do your best, you don't enthusiastically go looking for a gunfight, but you accept that MANY things will be beyond your control and you prepare yourself to respond as best you can when they do.

Agreed.


Also, I'm OK with the set as it currently is. There are people that don't see the value in it-- and that's fine, they shouldn't buy it. There are others that are more than happy with it-- and that's fine, too.

Hopefully, it'll help establish boosters as what they should be in the players' eye. OPTIONAL additions for people that like that stuff. We're not OBLIGATED to buy them, and we shouldn't be expected to. As long as the devs sell enough of them to cover the costs + reasonable return on investment, then they priced and packaged it well enough.

"Ends justify the means" is usually a Vigilante's justification-- "it doesn't matter what evil I do to get here, the end result is all that matters."

But that doesn't mean that your core idea is invalid- there are very legitimate (morally and legally) reasons for a hero to use lethal force.


We don't even have to look into the realm of superhero fiction for examples-- we've got plenty of real-world analogs where major religions have reconciled strict ideals such as "thou shalt not kill" to the realities of police officers and soldiers.

I'll use the one I'm most familiar with- the "just war" philosophy- with roots in Augustine (AD 354-430)... so these aren't new ideas. This is meant to be applied by heads of state in weighing the necessity of engaging in war, but you can see parallels with a superhero having to decide whether to use force in a given situation:


- the damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain;


You don't shoot jaywalkers. Or vandals. Or, for that matter, purse-snatchers. Property can be retrieved or replaced. Lives cannot. Therefore, "theft" crimes would rarely constitute a lasting, grave, or certain offense.

Certainty: there are times where we engage foes that are far away from the crime that we're attributing to them or their network. It would be far from certain that they're participants... or that lethal force on them affected the likelihood of the attack continuing

Note that, if they draw weapons and fire on you, though, then you've had a lasting, grave, and certain damage attempt (unless you're invulnerable) and could probably justify a response.

In-game, this makes it tough for many hero powersets that we see as inherently lethal (guns/blades) but why stop there? Is encasing someone in suffocating ICE really non-lethal? How about tossing a ball of fire directly at someone? Let's face it, most "blast" powers would be pretty darn lethal IRL, too.

There's a limit to what you can do with game mechanics. In my stories, the flame-tossers often hit weapons, fire warning shots, or use their destructive energies against non-living targets unless a foe gets lethal against them or the situation really warrants lethal force. Doesn't stop me from laying down flaming doom in a story arc, though.


- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

This is often the reason why police declare who they are and offer an ultimatum when drawing a weapon. Sometimes- but rarely- even doing that would be too risky, but what they're doing is offering one last non-lethal resolution before they do something irreversible.

Many heroes in comics did this as well. They make themselves known- let the enemy come along peacefully before engaging in full force. Again, in games, this could be the tanker's taunt or drawing aggro before getting off the first shot-- something that's NOT good for optimal game mechanics... but does usually cause at least one of your foes to attack you with a weapon, letting you unleash your attacks.


- there must be serious prospects of success;


This option always seemed odd to me. It seems to suggest that a futile struggle against overwhelming odds, no mater the cause, wouldn't be a "just war." Religious scholars note that success is never guaranteed, and thus a "serious prospect of success" is rarely a barrier to a "just war", but including it in the conditions gives a leader reason to pause when passions run high. It asks them to consider impact of their actions, and whether a pause or alternative approach might be best for what's under them. It gives leaders the option to surrender without losing dignity or moral certainty, preserving the lives of those under them... possibly for a time when the prospects are better.



-... must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.


Kinda self-explanatory. Don't burn down a city block trying to get the bad guy. Don't put more innocent lives at risk to save a single life (note- INNOCENT-- if you gotta kill 3 lethal assailants to save one innocent, so be it.)



The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.


1) Pretty verbose, but essentially, it's not the moral obligation of every soldier to decide if a war is just-- it is the obligation of the authority entrusted with that decision.

You can use this to justify two very opposing superhero behaviors--

- you could say that all superheroes adopt a "responsibility for the common good" thus, they're acting justly even if they ignore or oppose the government's decisions (Might for Right Act, Superhero Registration, etc).

- you could also argue that if the people have a duly-elected representative authority that they have give the responsibility for the common good, then moral heroes should defer to the decisions of that authority. If THEY don't want vigilante action, the heroes should respect that. If they expect superheros to act only in certain ways (powers division?) then so be it.


2) A more important factor for heroes-- "borne in prudential judgement"- no decision motivated by anger or hate results in a just action. Battling evil purely out of hate or anger... with no prudential judgement at play... is never just. It's too dangerous-- once war (or lethal force) is engaged, there will be MANY split-second decisions that can minimize the evils that can arise from the act. One blinded by rage risks missing these decisions, or making the wrong one when heat of the moment overcomes their reason.

Finally,
[there is a]...permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out.

This is where the individual soldiers' actions come into play- a "just war" does not allow them to disregard their individual actions. "War Crimes" are just as real as their peacetime counterparts, and just as immoral.

A hero would act in his best regard to avoid harming nearby innocents. A Vigilante may be more willing to accept some "collateral damage" if the greater good is served by also taking out the bad guy.

Good examples, but I've run into many of the OP's thoughts. There are many times and missions in the game where, basically, lethal force just isn't justifiable within the law... yet the only way my claws scrapper can engage them non-lethally would be to take some of the fighting pool- conceptually great, functionally notsomuch.

Back when CoV came out, I rerolled said scrapper as a claws stalker, but played as a hero that essentially left Paragon because, "there were enough capes that [his] methods weren't essential there." In the rogue isles... where so many people are barely clinging to existence, he found his niche.

Now I'm considering another reroll but then migrating him all the way around to Rogue-- he may be good "vigilante" material, and I'd never pretend that he was ever really "villain" material, but his roots are in the Rogue isles and I want him to remain in the supergroup there.



--------

I also have a heroic dual-pistols blaster that IS trying to follow some rules of engagement- she is taking the nonlethal fighting pool & the devices secondaries like stun gun. She leads off with these when the situation warrants & switches to lethal once lethal attacks are directed her way. I'd prefer if she could have been a martial arts scrapper with a "firearms" secondary set, but she's working out rather nicely so far.