Darkest
-
Posts
45 -
Joined
-
No.
-
Quote:Sigh, and I thought I might win with 150 views in 50 posts.Originally Posted by Miss_Cataclysm
I... concede defeat. However...
220 views in 54 posts = 407%
I think Hidden Hero wins. -
Quote:Thanks for that, Tormentoso. I know it's not even close to all-encompassing data, but it's interesting all the same.Originally Posted by Tormentoso
Quick calculate.
Based on 52 confessions here (me being #52 with 31 years):
Average age is 39.8.
Standard Deviation: 15.7 -
17 here, so I guess I'm just more proof of how many ages the game can pull in. Considering we've had mentions of 75-year-old (or thereabouts) people here as well, there's quite the age range. Maybe it's proof that we're all kids on the inside.
Would be interesting if someone could actually tell us the average age of a CoH/V player. Anyone got a clue? -
Love this idea, gives a bit of depth to a world we currently know so little about.
Nice concept, Westley...or, alternatively...
Awaiting the signal, Codename ph1L0t1x. -
Haha - I'm rather happy I placed "tend towards" before that now. However, I take your point. The whole thing is based on theory anyway.
-
Quote:...I'll consider my point vindicated then, I guess. And you told me not to pout?Originally Posted by Westley
Tell me about your mother.
-
Quote:The human mind has "inifinte" potential? Are you kidding me? Infinity is just a concept. We have to assume that it's just a concept. The universe? Yeah, bloody huge, but can you prove it's infinite? No. Speed? Yeah, you can go bloody fast, but as far as we're concerned, it's impossible to go past the speed of light, because you tend towards "infinite" mass and that's when things start imploding.Originally Posted by Westley
Yes, you forgot that the human mind has infinite potential. Big gap in your argument there.
Yes, TECHNICALLY, the human mind has infinite potential, and yes, TECHNICALLY, you could argue that they'll never run out of ideas...
Thing is, the likeliness of that happening is so stupidly low it's not even worth considering. You'd need an infinite number of developers (once again...not possible) with an infinte number of concepts (again, will never happen) and an infinite time period (REALLY, REALLY, IMPOSSIBLE) in order for your argument - which I'm taking as "Of course they could just churn out new stuff forever, the human mind has infinite potential so it must be." or some variation - to hold sway here. -
Quote:OK, I apologise. I didn't quite take into account all of the semantics people tend to use to try to destroy a perfectly viable arguement. I should have stated "It's the same reason you MOST PROBABLY won't like every book an author has produced, or every game a games producer has produced."Originally Posted by Westley
That's funny, I've liked EVERY book of Orson Scott Card's that I've ever read. And he's written a LOT of books!
Anything else, like, you know, some glaringly obvious - and relevant - ommision from my statement of opinion? -
Quote:Wow, this is a little shortsighted, no? The only way for this system of having "NEW STUFF to do" to be viable is for there to be a continuous stream of fantastic new ideas flowing out of some great, brilliant, shining orifice. The reason why? Once you play "NEW STUFF" a few times, it becomes this "OLD CRAP" you seem to dislike so much.Originally Posted by Perfect_Pain
I DONT WANT REVAMPS OF OLD CRAP.
I want NEW STUFF to do.
I have done all that OLD CRAP... Not gonna do it again...
I'm sorry to tell you this...that will never, EVER happen. The closest thing you'll ever get to it is something like the MA...yeah, anyway. The MA is, in fact, a good example at to why this isn't viable; even the people who actually put effort into their arcs and really try only have one or two that are particularly successful - because brilliant ideas AREN'T never ending. It's the same reason why you won't like every book an author has ever produced, or every game produced by a games manufacturor.
In the end, you'll have to find a way to make the "OLD CRAP" interesting again - "NEW STUFF" is finite. -
Very, very good.
-
Personally I believe that a Server list merge is...a good idea, overall.
Whilst it would create problems with Global names clashes (I think this is one of the problems, although I could be mixing up separate issues) and the like, and people would no doubt be dicomforted for a while, things would eventually settle down, and most (I've no doubt some would find fault, that's just life) would enjoy their in-game time all the more. -
If I look at how you're defining things, I'm pretty much the definition of your "Average" player...Guess you have to bear in mind that college eats into play-time, but still, very much your average Joe, it seems.
-
I shall have to enter this contest at the other end of the spectrum - I'm 17...been playing since I was about 12, though, so perhaps I was the 12 year old that GG mentioned.
-
Whilst I can't say I'm surprised, I certainly can say that the fact that this sort of thing is actually occuring within a game that prides itself on its close-knit community saddens me.
-
Many thanks to all for your replies. You've kept me on my toes and, to be totally truthful, with my back against the wall. However, alas, my evening is coming to an end.
Just a few points FYI;
1. I myself don't actually dislike Defenders, if I'm honest. I have a couple at 50 and I know the difference they can make to the team. I picked the controversial side to try and get things going...which I suppose it did.
2. You can, of course, continue with the debate amongst yourselves...although I feel it's somewhat lopsided ... leading on to my final point...
3. I seem to have picked something of an unfortunate issue to start a debate on, in that there's only one person against the entire populace. I didn't actually mean to generate this situation, as it means that once I leave, the thread will end.
But anyway, goodnight and many thanks once again, you've kept me entertained of an evening, which was why I started this in the first place. Early start tommorow - ugh - nothing like College.
Next time, I'll try to pick a more even issue, if I can.
Thanks again,
Darkest. -
Quote:Yes, indeed I do. I acknowledged what you said...And then made a separate point, which was essentially something I've said earlier "Why invite a Defender when you can invite a Controller?".Originally Posted by Catwhoorg
Not at all. Adding a defender you have added effectiveness to the whole team (through buff/debuffs and the like)
Add a Scrapper you have added damage, but not mutliplied the other team mates.
Do you actually understand the phrase 'force multiplier' ? -
Quote:Right, I understand. So, Defenders become more and more useful the more there are? Does this make up for the fact that in general use they are below average? I suppose that is a matter of opinion...Originally Posted by Catwhoorg
Not at all. Tankers and scrappers stack in a linear manner. Add a scarpper you have added a scrapper
Blasters are close to linear. Defenders and controllers act in a multiplicative manner. They force multiply the whole team. Add a defender and you have added effectiveness to the whole team.
8 defenders can do anything in this game, usually far safer and faster than any sort of mixed team
Also, you mentioned here that Controllers are capable of the same...This was close to my original point. -
Quote:Aha, was wondering when this would come up.Originally Posted by Pyrokine
You could say then that blasters are redundant as...
Defenders can do the same thing- although to a lesser extent - and .. buff/debuff etc
Whilst, yes, Defenders do what blasters do "to a lesser extent" it is, as you say, and as I have pointed out, a rather large difference. Yes, the difference in (de)buffs between Controllers and Defenders is there, but it is significantly less than the difference in damage (I refer back to my annecdote earlier).
Another point is that whilst Defenders have Controllers metaphorically breathing down their neck, Blasters are very much of their own in the "glass cannon" approach from my point of view. Defenders are more of an, er, "Glass Medi Pack"...if you see what I mean?
Also, I've read the NDO too, hilarious post. I can't remember the OP either though, sadly
-
Quote:Interesting point...could you elaborate on it?Originally Posted by Catwhoorg
Defenders make every other AT unecessary, and they get more and more potent the more you force mutliply with them
I've heard from friends that "All Defender TFs" go off without a hitch...but then, so do "All Tanker TFs", "All Scrapper TFs", "All Controller TFs", etc...My point being, put 8 of anything together in this game, and they will synergise... -
Quote:No, this is very true.Originally Posted by Kitsune Knight
"a little below the average" and "redundant" are not the same things.
Moving on from semantics...Defenders underperforming in comparison to other ATs makes them redundant. Why invite a Defender if you can invite a Controller. You certainly don't invite a defender in place of a Blaster if you can help it. -
Quote:I realise this, and yet Controllers can do the same thing - although to a lesser extent - and ... control.Originally Posted by Morac_Ex_Machina
Sure... if you are only looking at secondaries. Most defender primaries force-multiply others damage, by either damage buffs, to-hit buffs, endurance and recharge buffs, as well as effects on enemies in the form of defense debuffs, resistance debuffs and soft-controls to keep them grouped.
And whilst many Defender primaries do do as you say, several, such as Rad and Dark, won't even necessarily get their (de)buffs off before the mob is dead. If the Tanker (Or Scrapper, yes) happens to be herding, and you have a decent amount of AoE damage on the team, the animations may not even play out before the herd is dead. -
Quote:I see. Well, this is an interesting remark, because clearly you do need some AT's...otherwise there'd be no game.Originally Posted by Kitsune Knight
'Need' in this game is a horrible way to measure how useful an AT is, because you simply don't need any.
However, I take your point.
Generally, "needing" and "wanting" go hand-in-hand, or come very close to each other. And whilst you may want (de)buffs for your team, it needn't be a Defender that facillitates your wants. In fact, I find that Controllers are a lot more popular late game.
In a game that does seem to put emphasis on having equality amongst ATs and powersets, the Defender seems to me to be a little below the average. -
Quote:They do increase outcoming damage, yes, but by very little. My point isn't "Defenders do nothing at all." because that would be insane. My point is "Defenders become less and less useful as the level increases, and eventually aren't needed at all."Originally Posted by Morac_Ex_Machina
Defenders don't just decrease incoming damage, they increase outgoing damage too. Survivability is not the only thing defenders are good for.
Yes, they do need a new inherent, but only because rewarding you for hurting your teammates is not a good idea.
Oh, and I agree; they do need a new inherent. -
Quote:"Trite hypotheticals"? I believe my annecdote was about actual gaming experience. Also, I should have elaborated more on this, I apologise. We were fighting Council - hardly incredibly Psi res there, and the Blaster was Psi/Mental.Originally Posted by Kitsune Knight
First off, Psi isn't a very high damage set, especially with lots of heavily psi resistant enemies in the late game.
Secondly, this game is dead easy. You don't need any buffs or debuffs to survive even the late game- so by that logic Controllers aren't needed either... which is why I guess no one invites them either?
My point being, trite hypothetical are heavily contradicted by actual play experience in this game: Defenders are still incredibly popular in the late game.
Also, Controllers do the helpful job of controlling things, keeping them all bunched so that the AoE'ers can do their job well, and so they have some merit - more merit at least than Defenders, with their low damage and, according to yourself even, unneeded (de)buffs.
Finally, "Incredibly popular"? Not in my personal experience, but there you go.