Johnny_Butane
-
Posts
2441 -
Joined
-
Quote:I wouldn't quite agree. You see, even if you're looking at just SOs, it's better to be a medium survivability AT with high damage than it is to be a high survivability AT with medium damage. Why? Because 90% of the game doesn't require (or reward) high survivability. If that wasn't the case, Scrappers and Brutes wouldn't be the most popular. The fact that they are shows the majority of people playing the game think sub-Tanker survivability is just fine and the fact that Tankers aren't as popular shows that high survivability in itself isn't enough of a draw, especially if you have to take a big hit to your offense.Originally Posted by Captain_Aegis
In the interests of trying to keep this thread coherent, the general point some of us are making is not that Brutes and Tankers are unbalanced out of the box. If you're talking about SO-only builds, low-buff teams, the early game or playing solo, then the trade-off between the two ATs is, I believe, balanced.
It's my assertion that medium survivability is 'enough' the vast majority of the time and because of that, I don't think it fair to punish someone with more than that with low damage and being slow and boring, offensively speaking.
However, that is a separate issue than the Brute/Tanker cap issue, which you put forth quite well below:
That issue I think is one that more people can agree on as there's some quantitative data behind it and it lends itself to being solved easier.Quote:We're talking predominantly here about the fact that the two ATs become more unbalanced, the more buffs come into play. With the withdrawal of the blue/red barrier, we have two essentially thematically identical ATs, but in high-buff situations, one outperforms the other, as one benefits more from buffs due to higher caps.
While this issue might be largely restricted to high level content, I still believe it's an issue that needs to be looked at.
There is of course a third issue, that of Tankers lacking a "comic book feel", that I think ties more to the first issue than the second.
It's my belief that if you fix the second issue by bringing Tanker damage cap up, it will then allow for a mechanic that can attempt to address the first and third issues.
Alternatively, a mechanic that brings up Tanker offensive potential by bypassing the cap could take care of the second issue without adjusting the cap, and depending how flashy and cool it is, deal with issues 1 and 3 at the same time.
Nobody is asking for Tankers to do more damage than Brutes at the cap.Quote:Originally Posted by planet_J
So then...go ahead and ask for a damage cap bump...because you want to do more damage than brutes as tanks
I'm asking for the Tanker damage cap to be raised from 400% to 545%, which would, if my math is correct, put Tanker single target damage at the cap (after Bruising) to 90% of what a Brute can do at their cap. I think this is fair because Brutes get 90% of Tanker maximum HP at the cap, and are otherwise numerically identical.
. -
Quote:Because to admit that I am right about something is to validate me and my insane crusade for Tankers and to some people that is unacceptable.Originally Posted by TheNightwatch
I admit I've been away from CoH a couple of years, but I just don't get why it's even a question something needs to be done.
Additionally, even if you agree about the problem, there's a two equally valid ways to approach a solution.
One is to nerf down Brutes, targeting either their damage or survivability potential. One is to bring Tankers up by allowing them damage potential comparable to Brutes.
My opinion and aim is the latter.
In general, most players are content with Brutes, and the devs have allowed them to be what they are and it hasn't torn the game apart. Nerfing them would only upset a large number of people, as Brutes are probably tied for most popular AT with Scrappers.
However, there are some people adamantly against any change. There are also some people who just like to argue. I remember the fuss some made over the recent Stalker changes to bring them up and people love Stalkers now. I can only hope Tankers are so lucky.
. -
Quote:Brutes are not locked at their base values. There are uncountable ways for them to become tougher, and they don't require a Brute sacrificing any damage or giving up Fury or lowering their high damage cap. They can achieve almost as much survivability as a Tanker, they are only shy 10% maxHP, but a Tanker can not achieve as much damage.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
You're right. That choice is made for them.
Unless you're trying to say that the larger base values Tankers get have nothing to do with their survivability advantage.
Brutes get the same base values as Scrappers and Stalkers. In the absence of outside help via teammates or Incarnate powers, they are only slightly tougher than Scrappers, due to having higher base HP.
You conveniently ignore the higher base values Tankers have for survivability-related powers every time this discussion comes up.
That is NOT the reality of the game. The reality of the game is that IOs, Performance Amps and Incarnate powers DO exist.Quote:If you really want to compare Tanker and Brute performance, compare a Tanker and a Brute that are totally alone. No outside buffs from teammates, no Incarnate powers.
You want to ignore them because it hurts your position. Survivability wise, as they become more powerful, Brutes and Tankers are converging to a single point. Damage wise, Brutes are staying ahead and will continue to say ahead.
Except for the vast number of times neither die.Quote:The Tanker will outlive the Brute every single time.
Do Brutes die in +0x1 radio missions against the Council? In the SSA?
The fact is, Brutes are pretty damn survivable. For 90% of the content in the game, they get along just fine. The content that will kill a Brute, but spare an equivalent Tanker is what, maybe 5% of the game? So why should a Tanker suffer a damage penalty 100% of the time for an advantage that's actually only an advantage 5% of the time?
And of that 5% of content, IOs, Inspirations and Incarnate powers can close most of the gap for a Brute.
Then its a damn good thing for Brutes they don't have to stay at their base values and that things like IOs, Inspirations and the Incarnate system exist.Quote:Saying that Brutes give up nothing is a flat out lie. They don't get the base values Tankers get, and that makes them less survivable by default.
Brutes give up some out of the box survivability for damage.Quote:Brutes give up more than you're willing to admit.
Tankers give up damage for some out of the box survivability.
But Brutes get to have high survivability potential (nearly as high as Tankers) without giving up high damage potential. Tankers don't.
That is all I want fixed: Increase Tanker damage potential to bring them in line with Brutes.
And that's besides the point that out of the box survivability that Tankers get is often not advantageous to them and that high survivability potential is often superfluous.
. -
Quote:That doesn't change the fact my class covered it in high school physics.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Its called the mpemba effect, and its not a high school physics effect: at the present time the physics behind the effect is still actually unknown.
. -
Quote:Yeah, I had a brain fart. I was misremembering Fire with a second toggle with +Cold res.Originally Posted by Hopeling
Well, five of the powerset's eight attacks deal about 75% Cold damage, and Whirlpool deals 100% Cold damage. Fire Armor types will be pretty vulnerable to that.
Actually, if I remember my high school physics correctly, boiling water actually freezes faster because it's in a state to give off it's energy more readily than if it was at room temperature.Quote:Geyser really should suck for both sets (Fire because you're drenched, Ice because it's a geyser of boiling water)
. -
Quote:This.Originally Posted by Goliath Bird Eater
I just watched that part of the recorded coffee talk from last week. Absolutely NO mention of a specific date was given. All that was said is that changes to pool powers is something that will be discussed "in the coming weeks" (to quote Zwil), as in at some point during the summer.
In addition, the phrase "5th power" was tossed around (possibly like what was done for the travel pools, but for the remaining pools) and there's the "Sorcery" pool that was spotted on Test during the i23 beta.
. -
Quote:I said no damn such thing.Originally Posted by planet_J
So, you've said earlier in this thread you would give up some survivability for damage...right?
Sure, temporarily, as a click: take survivability hit situationaly to gain offense boost, in the way Bio Armor does. I'd be open to seeing how that worked for Tankers as an inherent.
But permanently reduce anything on Tankers for more damage? No way. Because Brutes don't have to make that choice. As long as they get to have nearly the same survivability potential as Tankers (without giving up their massive damage and damage potential), there's no reason Tankers shouldn't have similarly comparable offensive potential. Hence, upping the Tanker damage cap.
. -
Quote:I fully admit Stalker's aren't my specialty, but with the recent changes, I perceive Scrappers and Stalkers to be just about at the same place on the defense/offense spectrum.Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
How about this?
Code:defense -----middle--------offense------really offensive (at least some scrappers think so ) tank---------brute---------scrapper------stalkers
Granted, Stalkers are skewed more to ST damage and Scrappers are stronger in the AoE department. But Stalker's stealth feels comparable Scrapper survivability, if one had to compare apples to pears.
And I wouldn't mind a similar relationship between Tankers and Brutes, them being the two "heavy" melee ATs (as opposed to Stalkers and Scrappers being "light") and already sharing similar caps (except damage which is what I'm trying to remedy), Which is why I keep pushing for Tanker ST damage. Let Brutes be the AoE machines of the two. Conceptually, it makes sense to me.
. -
Quote:All I know is when I accidentally taunt said inanimate objects and they turn to look at me it freaks me the hell out in a way a Silent Hill style horror game never will.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Although technically speaking I don't know what it means to terrorize an immobile object with no discretionary powers.
. -
Quote:They're there. You just need +Perception to see them.Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
Psst... You forgot Stalkers...
. -
Quote:Two completely different things.Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Not to go off-topic (ok, totally going off topic...), but this is coming from THE crusader of the Tanker AT, right?
To model all of the logical damage types and subtypes, along with all their logical interactions, is just not feasible. Even just modeling interactions between your Primary and Secondary sets as a bonus (like having Water Blast + Electric Manipulation do more damage) would be how many combinations to invent and balance for?
And of course you come to things that aren't clear cut: "Well, would Water Blast put out Fiery Aura or would FA boil it away before it even hit? And it you attacked FA with ice, would it melt and then put out the fire?"
Insurmountable task, without even a clear goal, that never ends (because you go through it all over again as soon as a new power set is created).
. -
Laser Beam Eyes.
Lasers burn things with heat. Yet these do Energy damage. As do electric attacks/lightning which are, fundamentally, burns too.
Heat is just a form of energy, yet we draw a distinction, mainly so we can have things that are resistant to fire attacks, yet don't resist, say, a beam weapon or radiation.
Furthermore, Smashing and Lethal damage are fundamentally both just "physical" damage. If I shoot you with a bullet, that's "piercing/lethal" damage, but if you enlarged that bullet up to the size of a wrecking ball, it turns into Smashing.
Damage types are only abstractions, and exist only so we can have effects and powers be stronger against some things than others. For that purpose, steam doing fire damage is acceptable. The only thing important is that the guy made of fire can shrug off being shot with fire, and similar expectations we have of how powers should work.
Of course, Water Blast by all rights should be devastating to someone with Fiery Aura, yet in game they'll probably shrug it off as good or better than even someone who can cover themselves in ice. The game could very well do better in this regard. Malta's S/L resistant Kevlar vests shouldn't protect them against a super strength powered punch to the head, or sword cuts as it does bullets. Using Water Blast on an electrified target should damage both the caster and the target. Fiery Aura shouldn't work when you're treading water. Mailboxes and bus shelters should not be able to be Feared no matter how powerful a psychic you are.
But of course, changing all of that and more would destroy balance.
And if you're wondering why water burns, and other science facts-- just repeat to yourself "It's just a game, I should really just relax."
. -
Quote:You say Critical, I think "High damage value with a low-ish proc chance."Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
I'm with Rangle on this one. Surprisingly enough.
If it could be balanced so it isn't equivalent to Critical damage on any Bruised target (because that WOULD be OP), I could get on board with something like this.
And by "isn't equivalent to Critical damage" I mean it should not just do double damage on the Bruised target. And no, that isn't because I want Scrappers to stay ahead, it's because being able to land a Critical KO Blow at will would be overpowered as hell, and even you would have to admit it.
That's not what I was suggesting with the idea. I was thinking a 75-100% proc chance, with definately less than 50% of base as a [Doublehit] value, in Smashing. Not a bursty increase, but something more constant and even.
I've been asking for the damage cap to be upped to 545% to bring Tankers in line with Brutes. If the devs did do my Bruising/Doublehit suggestion, I'd revise that to an even 500% for the cap, if the Doublehit value and proc rare was decent enough to make up the difference.
Off the top of my head without a calculator, I think it would have to be a 35-40% of base value. 40% may even be a little over because of the way Doublehit calculates with recharge. I'll crunch the numbers later, as I'm walking out the door right now.
. -
Quote:I ask for a damage buff cap increase to bring Tankers in line with Brutes.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
And yet you ask for things like damage cap increases which the vast majority of all tankers would rarely see any material benefit from.
I don't usually bother trying to figure out new mechanics for Tankers to make them unique anymore. I'd rather leave that up to people the devs give fair consideration to. Even so, I've suggested a couple recently on the off chance they caught on.
As long as the damage cap gets fixed in addition to it*, I'm willing to entertain just about any mechanic or suggestion. But whatever else Tankers get, I think ideally it should add some pizzazz, fit with them conceptually, improve their popularity and make them feel badass. IMO, that's not an end discount.
If your idea and the cap fix were the only thing on they table, I could learn to live with it. It certainly wouldn't make Tankers worse. I just think there are cooler ideas than an end discount and I'd give the thumbs up to one of them before I would your idea.
*Or even instead of a cap increase if the suggestion improved Tanker damage potential similarly.
. -
Quote:I'll let you or Rangle claim ownership of it. An idea being affiliated with me makes the devs less likely to dig it.Originally Posted by Caulderone
That is a fairly interesting way to leverage Bruising without stacking -Res. It's also a fairly interesting way to stack multiple Tankers in a group, which right now serves little purpose.
I like it.
. -
Quote:Then I'm not buying into it. Tankers deserve something that makes them unique and desirable ALL the time, not something that gives them a head start on something everyone can do and whos advantage disappears the second you remember you can combine green, orange or purple inspirations into blues.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Deliberately so.
End is like survivability, it has a finite point where more ceases being really beneficial: once you can recoup more than you burn, more than that really isn't useful, aside from a few extreme side cases like end train and recovery debuffs.
I've attained that point essentially on all my Tankers with little effort. Ageless or CP makes end a joke, even with the blue gobbling monster that is Rage stacking and Hasten crashes. YMMV.
Like I said, there's not much else to spend on.Quote:It means you get to spend opportunities to solve them instead of doing other things.
No, I say the opportunities are fewer, with worse bang-for-buck and, most important to this discussion, not necessarily mutually exclusive with improving endurance use.Quote:For example, you keep saying that there's no opportunity to increase damage like there is to increase defense.
For example, Ageless Destiny is massive +recharge, but also +recovery.
On my main Inv/SS I was aiming for +recharge and +MaxHP with IOs, and still ended up with 80% global recharge perma and no end issues without making any noticeable sacrifices. And that's before even using Ageless and Hasten. Even if I could fit more +recharge, it really isn't going to shave much more off of KOB's or Foot Stomp's cycle time.
. -
Quote:Howzabout: Any Tanker that attacks a Bruised target (including the one that Bruised it) has additional [Doublehit]-style damage added to their attacks on that target.Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
[*]Damage cap stays the same. To help with Tank damage potential they either leverage bruising further, or add some minor de-buff to their attacks, that will stack from other Tankers.
This allows a benefit of Bruising to "stack" (but not multiply) with additional Tankers and without becoming an out of control multiplier for them the rest or the team.
. -
Quote:That is true but that doesn't mean that even the melee AT that is constrained by endurance the most is constrained very much at all.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
y mathematical necessity, those with the lowest DPE will have that constraint reduce their kill speed the most.
It's been my experience that power set makes more of a difference than AT for the blue bar. None of my Tankers are bottlenecked by their end significantly more than they would be if they were a Brute with the same power sets.
And that ignores the fact that pretty much any end issue can and is solved by the late game where pretty much any melee can attain a point where they can recoup it faster than they can reasonably burn it. This doesn't create a unique play style for Tankers if Brutes and Scrappers can attain it too. Which is why I said it gets the thumbs up from Scrappers and Brutes, because it's giving Tankers something they can already attain, and isn't something that Scrappers and Brutes can't also attain.
And, it doesn't even free Tankers up to build for anything else meaningful because outside of survivability, endurance and damage, there's nothing else for a melee AT to desire. Tankers have and can attain the first two of those. Scrappers and especially Brutes have and can attain all three.
You want to sell me on this idea? Multiply the endurance drain on toggles in all melee defense sets by 10 and then give Tankers an end discount so only they break even with the current rate. Because that's the only way Tankers having an endurance advantage would actually be an advantage.
. -
Quote:In addition, something can bend and flex but not break, plus "Adamantium skeleton" does not equal "Adamantium connective tissue".Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
Considering the leg isn't directly connected to the hip, but is a ball and joint...
. -
Quote:Tankers don't need to faceplant less. Otherwise, why not just put them on godmode.Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
Plenty of characters don't faceplant the vast majority of the time. This further reduces the number of situations in which a tanker would.
That's why we have Controllers and Doms.Quote:It's more group-oriented. Increased secondary effects means increased ability to eg stun EBs.
Re-read my point about Tankers and Stalkers. Tankers are force multipliers for everyone else, but Tankers get less from everyone else, including other force multipliers. They don't benefit much from control. They don't need defensive buffing. Their caps are too low for offensive buffing (which is what I want see changed).Quote:They do. Damage.
I object to anyone using Tankers as tractors.Quote:I already dualbox a squishy following me around on my melee toons. Objection irrelevant.
Tell you what: Lets swap Scrapper and Tanker inherents: Bruising for Criticals. Of course, Scrappers will have to take a 20% hit to their base damage...Quote:Ah, it's a shame they removed all the debuffs and control effects from every Scrapper primary.
If people believed that, they wouldn't have been the 2nd least popular blue side AT (ahead of only Defenders).Quote:Yes. Tankers, who are godlike selfless immortals
Tankers were only persecuted by certain developers. See Fury.Quote:are being persecuted by the jealous insects.
IIRC, it ends with Piotr saying "I don't want to fight you. They're holding my sister."Quote:Wolvie kicks Piotr through a barn and the fight ends with Piotr punching a tire and giving up.
Nope. They call in Wolverine to cut down crowds of ninjas. That's pretty much the first 50 issues of his first series, IIRC. They wheel up Colossus to fight the opposing heavy hitter or big bad. Heroic tankers focus on crowd control and routing when dealing with weaklings; they hold the damage back for the enemies who can take it.Quote:They're certainly capable of raging through crowds of weaker enemies, and they absolutely inspire a kind of fear or awe
People don't like knockback because they feel it lowers damage output with chasing down enemies. I don't disagree with that.Quote:Of course, if you really want to go to the source, we could put Knockback on every Tanker attack. That's definitely there; they send things flying all the time. I seem to recall Mr. Emmert being fond of that idea.
But I've always felt that should have been used as reasoning to add more knockback and justify upping the damage to offset the chasing. That's definitely what I do with a power like Rage: remove the +dam and ToHit buffs and add a slight ToHit penalty with +knockback and Doublehit 100% x base.
. -
Quote:Two ATs are the problem: Scrappers and Brutes. Remove both of them from the picture and Stalkers and Tankers get along beautifully.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Johnny, I actually DO agree with you on a point you keep making:
It is not fair or balanced that Brutes can approach Tanker survivability while dealing far more damage.
We're never going to agree on which AT is the problem, though.
As I pointed out in my previous post, Scrappers are more or less parasitic on teams at worst, off playing lone wolf and commensalistic at best.
Of course, if you did remove them, have plenty of ammo loaded in the Amnesia Ray for people who'd complain. And be sure to wipe your own memory when you're finished.
Tankers don't have endurance issues worse than anyone else. Even if they do, there's powers like Conserve Power, Performance Amps, Ageless Destiny and, you know, blue Inspirations, (because they don't need green, purple or orange). Even if you make it so no Tanker ever would need CP, that frees them up to take...what? More survivability powers they don't need? Damage boosting abilities that don't exist (or ones that aren't mutually exclusive to start with)?Quote:One thing I could support being done for Tankers is have the endurance cost lowered on some of their attacks, so at least their damage per endurance spent is comparable. Tankers deal roughly 75% of Scrapper damage, so reducing the end cost of their attacks accordingly would be fair I think.
It doesn't make Tankers any more fun, doesn't give them a unique play style. It doesn't give them any pizzazz or make them cooler. It wouldn't improve their popularity; to anyone who doesn't like playing Tankers now, they'd still be just slow Brutes without Fury.
IMO, the only reason Tanker Endurance Discount is on the table is because it doesn't offend Scrappers and Brutes; it isn't really something they'd want badly/be envious of and in no way endangers their position as Kings of the melee ATs. The suggestion is boring, bland and safe and keeps Tankers boring and bland (and keeps Scrapper and Brute egos safe).
. -
Quote:What do you hope to accomplish with this? Tankers do not lack in survivability. Giving them more than they have now doesn't help them because what they have now is already often superfluous. Especially compared to Scrappers and Brutes who get along fine with less, still don't faceplant in the vast majority of the game's content, and aren't heavily penalized for damage and damage potental like Tankers are.Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
Damage Capping. That is, capping incoming damage to Tankers to a certain value. I don't know if this would be a flat % ("no attack does more than 49% of a tanker's health) or some kind of diminishing returns thing -- like, a 100-point attack does 100 points, a 1000 point attack does 200 points, a 10000 point attack does 300 points (in a very simple example. I would express this as a formula but I've apparently forgotten everything I know about logarithms this morning! Hooray!).
I suggested this, half as a joke and half seriously, in another thread. Give Tankers a click that takes any Absorb on them and dumps it into bonus damage a la Doublehit. With the upcoming Tanker +Absorb ATO and say, a new magical power pool that has a +Absorb click, this could be put to good use on a Tanker, as opposed to more superfluous survivability they don't need.Quote:"Overcharge" mechanics. If a well-built, well-played tanker is going to be overhealed or pushed over their cap in certain areas, why not use this in their favor? An 'overcharged' tanker might deal more damage or recharge their powers faster.
From the little bit of testing with the Control Hybrid in beta when it had a similar 'Scourge' like attack, I can say this idea doesn't seem to work well in practice on a Tanker. It didn't get a chance to work on lesser enemies like Minions, and didn't make enough of a noticeable effect on harder enemies like Bosses and EBs because it didn't DO anything until you already got their health down half way with your weak attacks.Quote:Increased damage and secondary effects against low-health enemies. In the source material, tankers always seem to be good at getting the last word.
IMO, the only reason it works for Corruptors is because they have a buff/debuff secondary (and usually more AoE) that synergies with it.
I doubt this would happen. The devs want some mezzes to mez everyone.Quote:Incarnate-grade mez protection above a certain % of own health. Tankers -- and their team -- would be rewarded for keeping the tank at high health by having them be able to shrug off ordinarily non-resistible effects.
No.Quote:Bodyguarding. Arcana explained this one and I rather like it
Tankers already protect the team by holding aggro. They already buff the damage of anyone attacking the same target as them with Bruising.
Tankers do enough for teams already and pull far more than their own weight. Teams should do more for Tankers, IMO.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the reason some people want Bodyguard is so they can farm with their Tanker and PL their dual boxed squishy and keep it alive and on follow with debuffs on cycle.
You bring up a Tanker/Scrapper duo. If a Tanker stands next to a Scrapper, the Scrapper is not only safer, but it does more damage. What does the Tanker get from standing next to a Scrapper? Nothing. Scrappers contribute the damage they do, but they don't make the Tanker's damage any better. Combined, the duo's damage goes up, but Tankers aren't any more damaging. That would be as if Tankers had their superior survivability but didn't pull aggro; sure the overall duo toughness goes up, but Scrappers wouldn't be safer.Quote:it's got a sort of Colossus-and-Wolverine feel, which is pretty much the archetypical Tanker/Scrapper duo.
In other words, usually Tankers do more for other than others do for them and contribute more to a team than Scrapper (or Brutes), yet are punished for it with crap damage.
Also, I need to point out that Colossus (the Tanker in your words) does way more damage than Wolverine, and usually tears him apart when they fight:
That's why comic book Tankers draw so much attention (aggro) from the enemies; because they're powerhouses and the serious threat. CoH Tankers aren't a serious threat, they're low damage rodeo clowns.
. -
Quote:"My head wear is augmented."Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
According to the launcher, JC Denton certainly seems to be enjoying his free hat.
. -
Quote:I hope so. Then I can finally roll that Mind Control/NRG Dom I've been wanting to, 'Brain Washington'.Originally Posted by Roderick
There was an offhand comment a while ago (on a Coffee Talk, maybe?) about "historical" hairstyles... maybe we're getting a powdered wig too?
. -
Quote:Originally Posted by SuperOz
I think it's a little from column A and a little from column B myself.
In Felicia Day's defense, she's very passionate about Geek Culture. I've tuned into her live stream with her and some of her contemporaries talking about fiction they've read (it's like a monthly book club thing, and I can't say the name on the forums, save to say that the first part of the name is like Virginia), and she's knowledgeable. And not in a passing way. This is all being shown in an uncensored, unedited way where she's even getting a little drunk live on camera.
If there's detriment to be placed here, it's that she's used her celebrity to further her career, and that's something pretty much every celebrity does, even those whose sole attribute as a celebrity is being a celebrity. I can't really blame her for doing that. Alright, so she's an actor who makes her own web show and parlayed the success of that to get her more acting work. Sounds like someone who's clever to me rather than someone who's ruthlessly exploiting a section of culture.
She's certainly not alone. Look at how Wil Wheaton (who has a lot of varied interests and is very vocal in his own geek leanings) has done the same but with much less fanfare and a broad embracing by the geek community.
The real crux of the issue is here (at least to refrence Johnny B's posts) is the nature of geek culture. Like it or not, acknowledge it or not, but geek culture is now mainstream. I grew up as a fat kid with glasses who played D&D during his lunchtimes at school, obssessively played his Commodore 64, could recite the original D&D rules back to front, and was reading Tolkien seriously by the age of 14. And I got teased and bullied for it.
Now these things are embraced wholeheartedly and largely because the people involved in it are now the people who have given us the Internet and are the movers and shakers in society. They're now as socially powerful as sports heroes and movie stars were, and arguably moreso because there's no one demographic that 'geek heroes' come from.
And the term 'gamer' is mainstream now too. People game on smartphones and Facebook and it's something do as part of their lives rather than as a majority of it when you did indeed have to dedicate serious time to it...but I guarantee you that if I could've played my old C64 games on a smartphone, I would've.
Gamers have evolved and changed, really.
The journalist either was drunk or maybe resentful of working on something about her and saying 'oh, this isn't real news and this is so beneath me' or something of that order. He got publicity for his actions, but it was all negative. Internet society is instant and a living breathing thing. You can't make a comment in isolation anymore and think it won't get noticed by someone, somewhere. It was a foolish move and it cost them their job, so if that was a publicity stunt, it was a costly one.
Felicia Day I suspect is what I percieve her to be: a professional making a living out of things she loves doing. So of course there's going to be a perception of her as being phony, because she's making money from it. Can't be genuine, right?
If there's anything I'd personally observe about her is that she doesn't appear to have let her fame go to her head, and she's enjoying the ride.
Hey, I would too.
S.
To make a comparison: Jay Leno loves cars. He's got a huge collection of them. He often appears on car shows to talk about them and is profiled in the magazines. He's obviously extremely knowledgeable and passionate about them. It's fair to say Jay considers himself a gearhead and other gearheads accept him as one.
But his love of cars came out to the public after he already made it big. He also doesn't shove his hobby into his show all of the time and all of his jokes don't revolve around cars. Jay didn't build his name being "the car comedian". If that wasn't the case, perhaps people would be skeptical about him.
.