Doorknob

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if the people that find the difference between a yes and no so unfair just enjoy being contrary. Maybe they don't want to have to stop and argue because they can't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does everything have to be a point-by-point debate, though? Can't we sometimes just voice our approval or disapproval for something?

Here's an example:

OP: I want the devs to add brightly-colored unicorns to CoH.
Responder 1: /signed
Responder 2: Yes
Responder 3: No

Does Responder 3 really need to go into a detailed explanation of why he or she feels adding brightly-colored unicorns to the game would negatively impact his or her experience? I suppose Responder 3 could have said, "No, because I wouldn't like brightly-colored unicorns in CoH." But isn't that implied by the simple "no"?

Sometimes the things we want to see in the game are just a matter of taste. In some cases, we might have fully reasoned through why we feel a certain way. But in others, we might just simply like or dislike an idea.

This guy is not doing too well with the new rules.

In order to ensure that the dissemination of information on these boards can be done both safely and effectively, I have developed templated responses that one can use to voice an agreement or disagreement about an issue.

These templates have the following benefits:

1. They are not simple "yes" or "no" responses.

2. They have been analyzed for words violating the forum rules, and should be safe to use. If any words or phrases are found violating the forum rules, I will add the offender to my violation analyzer, and update the templates to fix the problem. Hopefully, with enough usage, these templates can become Board Certified Responses (BCRs).

3. No flame wars. If we stick to using templated responses, and none of the responses contain flames, there can be no flame wars.

4. Easily identifiable rule violators. How do we find violators? Just search for anybody not using an approved template. Even though it would not be technically against the rules not to use a template, why would anybody who had anything valid to say not use them?

5. Equality. Even with simple "yes" or "no" responses, there can be differences in the style of a reply. Inequality breeds resentment; resentment breeds hostility; and hostility breeds personal attacks. The templates ensure that no one person's response is "better" than any other. They promote uniformity and equality for all paying subscribers.

AGREEMENT
I agree (choose one):
[ ] wholeheartedly
[ ] in part
[ ] somewhat
[ ] slightly

with your assertions because (choose all that apply):
[ ] your points are valid
[ ] I am in favor of the idea
[ ] a dev has responded in favor of the idea
[ ] the idea has merit and is feasible

Your ideas are (choose one):
[ ] not unique, but I support them nonetheless
[ ] new and fresh, and will hopefully be considered by the devs
[ ] going to be implemented by the devs, for which I am grateful

DISAGREEMENT
I disagree (choose one):
[ ] wholeheartedly
[ ] in part
[ ] somewhat
[ ] slightly

with your assertions because (choose all that apply):
[ ] your points are invalid
[ ] I am against the idea
[ ] a dev has responded against the idea
[ ] while the idea has merit, it is not feasible

Your ideas are (choose one):
[ ] not unique, and have been mentioned many times before
[ ] at least new and fresh, despite the fact that I don't agree with them
[ ] going to be implemented by the devs, despite my objections

[ QUOTE ]
And I seem to be the only one in the belief that a more direct sequel to City of Heroes will follow MUO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, you're not the only one. People that are worried about Marvel are assuming that without Marvel being in the picture, Cryptic would be making City Of 2.0. However, nothing is to say that Cryptic would ever get funding for a sequel. It's quite possible that they would have just continued keeping City Of maintained until there were no longer enough players to support it.

Cryptic is getting a whole new development team with a brand new source of funding. This is good news. We should all be glad that Cryptic is growing as a company because that means they aren't going out of business any time soon. Sure, they will use lessons learned from City Of in developing the Marvel game. And it's certainly possible that people might leave City Of for MUO. But, nothing is to say City Of would last any longer even without MUO in the picture, and having MUO keeps Cryptic alive to, guess what, work on the sequel to City Of.

Of course, nothing is certain, but I believe that if Cryptic stays in business long enough, they will come out with a sequel to City Of. As others have pointed out, City Of is an original work of theirs; they aren't going to give up that universe easily. And, the sequel will benefit from lessons learned not just in City Of, but in MUO. Who knows, maybe by that time they will be big enough to be able to supply a steady stream of content in City Of 2.0 to satisfy even the most hardcore players. (Okay, that will never happen, but they might be able to get a lot closer to that goal.)

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I don't PvP... there is no honor in it. For those of you who enjoy pulling the legs off ants, you've just been told by God himself that it's not only OK, it's ENCOURAGED.

Lovely...

[/ QUOTE ]

Allowing something and encouraging something are two different things. From the devs' point-of-view, they are concerned simply with what is not allowed in the game, and thus what rules must be enforced by GMs. If an action is not allowed, GMs act; if an action is allowed, GMs don't. Of the set of actions that are allowed, the devs don't decide which actions are "preferred" over others. That is a matter of personal taste.

The devs have decided that it is not against the game rules to intentionally give others debt in a PvP zone or to interfere with RP events taking place. That doesn't mean players ought to do those actions, but rather that players won't be stopped by GMs if they do. It is up to the player to decide whether or not to partake in such activities. The devs intentionally set up the PvP zones to give players as much freedom as possible to make their own choices of how they will act.

As for honor, which is more honorable, not doing something because you choose not to or not doing something because you can't? To me, the fact that people choose to abide by "rules of engagement" despite the fact that those rules are not enforced with a game mechanic or by official policy is indicative of more honor, not less. True, the increased freedom means that people can just as easily be dishonorable as honorable, but the freedom of PvP zones allows each zone on each server to develop its own personality and player culture.

The devs have given players more freedom to act in PvP zones, but they have also given players more freedom to react. Players can act dishonorably, but when they do, they shouldn't be surprised at others' reactions. Of course, people will likely disagree on what is or is not dishonorable, but again, that just contributes to the liveliness of a zone's player culture. And as with all cultures, no one person decides what is culturally acceptable, but rather the culture develops from all of its members (to one degree or another) in a manner which sometimes makes it seem like it has a life of its own. And very rarely does cultural acceptance equal legally allowed. There are many things that are legal that are culturally unacceptable, and even things that are technically illegal that are culturally acceptable.

Ultimately it boils down to how players want to use their freedom. Yes, that freedom can be used to attempt to ruin others' fun, but it can also be used to give the PvP zones more depth than can be found in the more restrictive PvE zones.

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone think that this isn't even MORE painful to get than the "proper" way to get Isolator? Auto-Exempting gives level appropriate debt, it would cause levels 20+ to wish they had their better powers all through it. It would take considerably more work to get. IIRC it takes about 40 minutes or so to get in the tutorial if solo, and about 20 minutes or less with a team. This idea is lot longer, but if the person is truly fanatical about badges, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Add in a new way for toons to start out. They could even put in missions that duplicate the tutorial missions, for those of us who have already done the tutorial zone way too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a fundamental disconnect between how we are viewing badges.

View 1: A badge is a collector's item
Badges are simply tokens that are collected like stamps, coins, comic books, etc. Although you might have some interesting stories of what you had to go through to acquire them, the items themselves don't represent any specific activity. You collect them for the sake of adding them to your collection.

View 2: A badge is a trophy
Badges represent an event or activity like a medal or trophy. The experience of getting each badge is key to each badge's identity. Since the badge represents an experience, you can't really have alternate means of getting the same badge. A different experience results in a badge that represents something different, and thus results in a different badge.

I see badges as View 2, which is why I think adding a task force as a means of getting Isolator changes what Isolator represents, and thus results in a different badge. To me, it isn't the amount of work that is important, but the activity itself.

Now, for those of you with View 1, I can see why the specific activity involved in getting the badges might not be as important, and why adding alternate means of getting the same badge is a viable possibility. (With View 2, the very act of adding alternate means results in a different badge, so doing such a thing is technically impossible.) In fact, View 1 is how I see unlockable costume pieces, which is why for those, I don't think it is important exactly how you unlock them, and think those should be available to all.

Of course, even my view about costume pieces has exceptions. For example, if they added any special villain costume pieces tied to the patron that you ally yourself with, those I would consider to represent a choice you made, and thus, View 2 would hold in that case.

So, in the end, I guess it all comes down to what the devs designed the badges for. Did they design the badges to be collectibles or trophies? Are we supposed to collect the entire set or are they suppose to represent the unique path of a character's life?

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, that why we pay our monthly dues, to enjoy content.

Since we are talking about badges I will try to use an example here.

If the devs put in a badge such as the Halloween badges this upcoming year and they say well lets put it in a zones that require you to be level 20+ then that excludes all heroes below level 20 and it would not be fair to them as they play and enjoy this game as the rest of us do.

Yeah some badge do require you to be of a certain level to gain access to the zone such as Creys Folly, but those badges are always there so this would not fall under my example. Because eventually you will get to the level to get these badges.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we pay to enjoy content, but to me, part of what makes content enjoyable is when it is dynamic. For example, the Calvin Scott TF was taken out a few issues back. I'm hoping that they start doing more changing of TFs to keep the world evolving. If the devs need to constantly worry about making all their content "backward-compatible" and retroactively available to all characters, I feel that they would be more restricted in making changes than they would be otherwise. Temp powers are another example. I think they should be able to add new missions with new temp powers without having to worry about making those missions available to all characters that missed them.

In the case of the Halloween badge, if it were just a general Holloween badge, they yes, I would feel that would be unfair. But if there was a zone-specific one-time event in a level-restricted zone that, upon completion, offered a badge, I wouldn't find it unfair. Sure, some people might not have characters at the proper level, but by the time they get there other opportunities will be available for different badges.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok lets get technical since you seem to be doing so.

Yes, they are all kill (x) badges. So in a way it is in the same .

But it is not the same because Isolator is not a Event badge as the others are such as the Winter, Halloween and the celebrant badge.

These badges were for a limited time. Isolator is still currently in the game. The special event badges are not. So in fact they are not exactly the same. Only way they are similar is because of the kill (x) attached to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is that there can only be two types of badges: Special event badges that only exist for a limited time and long-term badges that should be available to all characters at any time (not counting perhaps some minimum requirement, such as level)? Why can't there be more types? Why can't there be tutorial-only badges? Should the devs be forced to make every new thing they add to the game available to all existing characters, regardless of level?

Just as it doesn't make sense to have the event badges available outside of the events, it doesn't make sense to have tutorial badges available outside of the tutorial. I have no problem with the devs adding another badge for killing 100 contaminated outside of the tutorial, but part of Isolator is that you get it with a new character, and changing that would destroy the badge.

What is a badge anyway?

Is it a title? Well, people here seem to agree that Handsome and Beautiful are the same badge, but they have different titles. So it must be more than just a title.

Is it a flag in a database? I suppose the devs could just automatically give all characters badges whenever they think of a new one, but I would imagine that would make the badges meaningless in much the same way that giving everybody ten times the amount of money they currently have would not make anybody richer. So it must be more than just a flag in a database.

Is it a representation of effort? Some badges you get just by logging in; others you get by going to a specific location; others you get by spending lots of time hunting; and others you get by completing certain missions. Different badges require different amounts and types of effort, so a badge in general is more than just a representation of effort.

Then what is a badge? IMO, a badge is a representation of an experience. The Isolator badge is more than a kill X badge; it is a kill X in the tutorial badge. The Jail Bird badge is more than a find the location badge; it is a find the location in the tutorial badge. Many people new to the City Of universe don't know about the badges, so a lot of people's first characters don't get them. But the badge isn't for those characters; it is more of an Easter Egg for veterans rolling alts. The next time through, players that learn about the badge can get it.

Most badges are badges that have no maximum requirement. Once you pass the minimum (if one even exists), you can get them whenever you want after that. Others have a minimum and maximum requirement. You have to get them within a specific range (time, level, etc.) in order to get them. So far the only ones I am aware of that are of this type are the badges limited by time. The tutorial badges are different in that not only do they have a maximum and no minimum, but the limit is level-based instead of time-based.

If players have a means to get the badge outside of the tutorial, however, they will effectively be removing tutorial badges and replacing them with different badges. The title might be the same, the database flag might be the same, and the amount of effort might be the same, but the badge will not be the same. Part of the experience, getting the badge as a fresh new character in the tutorial, will be gone. IMO, asking for alternate means to get tutorial badges is effectively asking for those badges to be removed.

Personally, I like that the devs have added a different type of badge. In fact, I'm hoping as more content gets added there are a lot more badges added that have maximum requirements via limited-level and choice-based story arcs. Even cooler would be choice-based arcs that affect others' choice-based arcs ultimately resulting in a big server-wide event consisting of many sub-missions...but that's a dream for the distant future. Having limited opportunity badges doesn't just have to be limited to events. Having badges that are limited to certain characters adds to the diversity of each character's set of badges. Imagine comparing war stories about how you got your badges instead of just looking down another's list and saying, "Yeah, got all those too."

Now, if getting X number of badges is all you care about, then, as has already been suggested, I think having a "pre-Issue 2" badge for all characters that were created before Issue 2 would be fine. That would be a brand new badge, representing something completely different, and thus would not affect the existing badges.

Another possibility would be to have a mission that is only available to those without the Isolator badge. Although you took part in taking out the contaminated, one of them escaped and has infected an area. Your mission is to stop the infection. Completing this mission will give you a badge.

[ QUOTE ]
To the guy with all the math: what you really mean there is Gun/Knife Attack 1, Gun Attack 2, and Gun Attack 3. In reference to my example, I was refering to player defensive powers 1, 2, and 3. Not the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the powers 1, 2, and 3 that I mentioned were attacks. But, I also mentioned defense powers; I just didn't label them. When looking at this fix, you can't consider just the attacks or just the defense powers. You have to consider both of them.

To clarify, in my example, I mentioned the following attack powers:
Attack Power 1 - Uses 5 bullets and 5 knives
Attack Power 2 - uses 10 bullets
Attack Power 3 - uses 10 knives

And, the hero had the following defense powers:
Defense Power 1 - 25% Bullets/Knives
Defense Power 2 - 25% Bullets
Defense Power 3 - 15% Knives

With all three defense powers up, the hero would get the following defense against each power:
Before Bug Fix
Attack Power 1 - 90% (Defense Power 1 + Defense Power 2) + (Defense Power 1 + Defense Power 3)
Attack Power 2 - 50% (Defense Power 1 + Defense Power 2)
Attack Power 3 - 40% (Defense Power 1 + Defense Power 3)

After Bug Fix
Attack Power 1 - 50% (Defense Power 1 + Defense Power 2) OR (Defense Power 1 + Defense Power 3), whichever is largest
Attack Power 2 - 50% (Defense Power 1 + Defense Power 2)
Attack Power 3 - 40% (Defense Power 1 + Defense Power 3)

[ QUOTE ]
I will explain this whole problem using zero mathematics and zero CoH terms:

Step 1:
FORGET EVERYTHING YOU KNOW.

No really. Did you do it?
Okay.

Step 2:
Imagine that you have a bunch of superpowers that protect you from harm, such as bullets and knives. A whole bunch of them.

Step 3:
Imagine that one of them is pretty good and really helps you not get hurt by bullets or knives.

Step 4:
If you activate 3 or 4 more powers like that, would you expect to be:
A) Really extra super-duper protected from bullets and knives?
Or
B) Protected exactly the same against bullets and knives?

This is the problem in the proverbial nutshell. No amount of math or "but what if the bullets are flaming" or "wait, no, what if they are ice knives" is going to change that.

It's simply counterintuitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not entirely accurate. A better analogy would be this:

There are three powers:

Power 1 - Uses 5 bullets and 5 knives
Power 2 - uses 10 bullets
Power 3 - uses 10 knives

(For simplicity's sake, assume 1 bullet is equivilant to 1 knife)

Let's say you have a 25% defense against bullets/knives

With the bug, you would get the following defense against each power:

Power 1 - 50% (25% bullets + 25% knives)
Power 2 - 25%
Power 3 - 25%

Now, does it make sense that the powers that do single-typed damage should have twice as much chance of hitting someone as the one that does both types? The power protects against bullets OR knives together, not separately.

With the fix, since defense doesn't stack against single attacks, you get the following defense:

Power 1 - 25%
Power 2 - 25%
Power 3 - 25%

However, defense of the same type still stacks, so suppose you activated another power that gives 25% defense against bullets. In that case, with the bug you would have gotten the following defense against each power:

Power 1 - 75% (50% bullets + 25% knives)
Power 2 - 50%
Power 3 - 25%

With the fix, you would now get the following:

Power 1 - 50% (Since you have a 50% defense against bullets and only a 25% defense knives, you get the higher of the two bonuses)
Power 2 - 50%
Power 3 - 25%

Now, if you activated yet another power that gives a 15% defense against knives, you would get the following:

Before fix:

Power 1 - 90% (50% bullets + 40% knives)
Power 2 - 50%
Power 3 - 40%


After fix:
Power 1 - 50% (since you have a 50% defense against bullets and only a 40% against knives, you get the higher of the two bonuses)
Power 2 - 50%
Power 3 - 40%

While activating the extra 15% bonus against knives wouldn't be useful against Power 1, it would be useful against Power 3. So, stacking is still useful. All the bug fix does is make multi-typed powers just as effective as single-typed powers.