MissDemeanor

She thought, "Oh gods at last, Liz!" as she settled slowly into the tub full of suds, exuding a heartfelt sigh as she flexed and stretched in the hot water. So painful. Is every day going to be like this one?

She looked over at the costume bearing the Báthory family crest, crumpled and discarded on the tile floor, and wondered if it was all worth it. This Heroing thing. The bruises, burns, sweat, trips to the hospital and every muscle screaming from the workout. The blood...

Her eyes close suddenly and she inhales sharply as the vision fills her thoughts again. Another Erzsébet in her bath at Cachtice Castle in 1604, so very different yet so similar. Screams, the tormented cries of the serving girl as Dorka cut her again and again with the barbs of the lash. The blood dripping into the bathtub, falling into the water and onto Erzsébet's skin...

Is this memory real or only fevered imagination? Can I possibly remember something that happened 400 years ago to my clone-host, the original Elizabeth Bathory?

The Blood Countess, Comtesse Sanglante. Tortured and murdered somewhere between 80 and 650 young women between 1575 and 1610. Rumored to have taken bites of their flesh, bathed in their blood, tortured them in every conceivable way along with four accomplices. At the very least, the most sadistic woman in history...and at the very worst, one of the most psychotic killers the world has ever known.

"And I am her, or of her. Cloned from her cells, am I going to become a psychotic multiple murderer? NO!"

Fists lashing at the soap suds, splashing water across the tiles, unleashing her fury at the Countess and the Council scientists who grew her in a vat.

"I refuse. I didn't ask for this, I don't want it. I will not be her! I've got to find some way to bring some good to this world."

Grabbing the towel, she quickly dries off and grabs the costume again, pulling it on with sharp yanks. Back to find more of those Outcasts, Trolls...follow the rumor of that new trouble in King's Row? Perhaps the Taxibot or her other casual teammates are up this late too. Or one of the other licensed heroes...

Whatever. Something, anything. Time to save some lives.

[ QUOTE ]
In all honesty, would it really kill the developers to give us one free permanent respec to our level 30+ characters...so we can play around with things?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shuffle around 67 enhancements more than once a year? Please god no! Takes a bloody hour.

Actually, I've yet to use a second respec on any character I own, most of them have 3-5 'banked' against future major changes. Probably because I just don't feel that optimax perfection is a) acheivable or b) necessary. Or maybe I'm just good at making good stable, flexible builds, I dunno.

But watching characters swap back and forth between PvP and PvE builds daily....no, I think that's quite a bit too much to ask for.

[ QUOTE ]
"I wonder how THIS works?" but never have a chance to find out until we backtrack.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, that's what the Test Server is for.

[ QUOTE ]
Try to act like this forum is just a bunch of people gathered in a room, talking over some things. I hope the next time you're in a board room and someone asks for clarification you don't tell them they're an idiot for not immediately grasping the concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, wouldn't that be nice?

I've seen two forums like that in 30 years of telecomming...and they were both private boards.

Welcome to the internet.

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I can't find a way to better explain what I meant. My post wasn't meant to imply anyone here believes Cryptic makes changes just for the sake of changing things, just to note that I don't think any sensible MMO developers would indulge in such a thing.

Nothing more than that, really. As a debating point, it's a bit of a non-starter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, all changes have a purpose (often one the players don't see or refuse to recognise).

One of the oldest online pay-service internet games (17 years and counting) still regularly receives 'nerfs' and 'buffs'--no good game is EVER 'done'.

[ QUOTE ]
I have never made the accusation that the Devs were “Dimwits” as you put it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Er, somebody else said that.

[ QUOTE ]
“ So you want to 6 slot hasten and have it on all the time, Well how do you like these apples!" and through tougher content at me or tougher villains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good, until you consider that everyone riding the ability caps all the time makes certain powersets less useful than others. Buffing and debuffing are undervalued, among other things.

State's stated purpose for ED worked out fairly well--it's now a five AT game. There's not a toon you can bring into your team that doesn't bring something to the table that's both useful and nessary--as opposed to City of Fire Tankers + 7 Random Bodies.

[ QUOTE ]
To have his/ her make up changed by changing the rules after all the time you spent on it, is just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Debateable. Static games do not maintain player bases. Part of the challenge is working with what you've got, and learning how to adapt when something changes...and something always WILL change, in any game, anywhere.

[ QUOTE ]
I never had a GM say that my +5 Sword now only does +2 because I used it in a way that was “unintended”. They would throw bigger monsters at me. That would force me to change my approach going forward rather then starting at step one again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, a cue up a fine annecdotal story about why you cannot continue to just "make the bad guys harder" into infinity. Bradley U, the D&D lobby geeks--playing the game until nearly every character had a selection of the best available gear, including artifacts. Regularly rolled over demigods, the legendary dragons, and every Demon Prince in the game.

Classic Monty Haul campaign, whupping the baddest monsters available again and again and again--the players grew bored playing it, and voluntarily began again with a much more limited approach to magic goodies, experience, et al. The original mutant freak overpowered characters were retired and haven't seen the light of day since.

[ QUOTE ]
I may be a a simpleton, but there were many games that offered a cheat code like Quake the would put you in Godmode. I would do that from time to time... it was dopy fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

But game theory (and indeed game marketing) indicates that games that are too easy do not maintain long term player bases. How interesting is tic tac toe to you? Kind of boring to play a game with the same outcome every time it's played, isn't it?

Type "games are supposed to be fun" (include the quotes) in your google search, and read some of the resultant whines.

Then pick up a copy of Koster's "Theory of Fun for Game Design." It takes a much deeper look at what 'Fun' really is, as far as games are concerned.

"Games primarily feature a core pattern(s) and mechanic(s) which players learn via playing the game. This is fun for the mind.

If the pattern is too hard to discern, or the mechanic of learning the pattern too difficult, players get frustrated and stop playing. On the other hand, if players understand the pattern and master the mechanic too easily, they'll quickly become bored and stop playing. There are other issues as well (relevancy, matching expectations, presentation, etc.) that come into play."

Part of the developer tightrope is walking that line between too easy and too hard.

[ QUOTE ]
hate to see the same thing happen to this game that happened to that video chain.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the decline of the giant video chain couldn't have anything to do with an increase of alternative methods of obtaining the same product?

[ QUOTE ]
Rather then change the rules after a toon is build and far underway to maturity, make the situations and bad guys tougher.

[/ QUOTE ]

They tried this in I2 (I3?). Made the bosses much tougher than they had been previously.

What they found out is that all ATs were not equally capable of handling uberbosses. The ATs that could do it before (boss-killers by design, mostly scrappers and other single-target specialists) loved the change, and everyone else had a difficult time of it. It was eventually rolled back out.

Leveling the field is a much more rational (and in the long term good for the game) approach than a change like the BossBuff that really benefited a few specific powersets and hurt everyone else.

Personally, I think that many players are simply resistant to change. Every issue chases a few hotheads out of the game (arguably no loss), but makes the game more equitable for future players.

I look at it not as 'massive nerf' but rather as 'maybe a change to my slotting is in order'. It's still an excellent defensive power, and cheap toggles with this (really rather awesome) effect...can't hate those. Shuffling the slots around isn't a big problem.

All in all, almost universally positive changes.

The debuffer debuff before the scale adjustment rolls in is unfortunate, but probably not toon-breaking.

The mission experience thing fixed an obvious exploit, always good.

I like it. On to I7 quickly, please.

[ QUOTE ]
My fear is that complete transparency will simply narrow the field of "acceptable" PvP builds in the perception of the playerbase, by virtue of having Dev confirmation.

[/ QUOTE ]

...driving the PvP players into a few selected FoTM builds, quickly followed by the inevitable nerfs to those selected builds, followed by much ranting and gnashing of teeth.

It's a wonderful Catch-22, isn't it? The more serious a powergamer you become, the MORE likely you are to see a nerf to your favorite...because lots and lots of other people are reaching the same conclusions that you are.

Yes, publishing the data would be a really bad idea (from a public relations standpoint alone, a complete nightmare). Four AT's screaming about the other eight being better...the other eight getting upset 'stop nerfcalling!'...the top four ripping each other in board wars...and everyone mad at the devs.

I don't think you're likely to see it. If you DO see it, stop reading the message boards for a few months, because it's gonna be a firestorm no matter what the numbers actually say.

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, this is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, extremist arguments and class v class comparisons on paper always are. But as we've seen, when your original argument doesn't hold up, you backfill desperately. And the tried and true Nerfherding tactic of Argumentum ad nauseam...wear your opponents out with dogged persistence, and no one will remember that your original op (as presented) is, in fact, wrong.

This whole thing gets me to thinking how the Devs could make a really good Event out of those (relatively useless) Arenas they spent so much time developing:

BATTLE OF THE TITANS

This Sunday! See Sixty-Four of your favorite supervillians and Monsters battle it out in a no-holds-barred Cage Match! Wager on your favorite! Purchase "Go Chronos #1" Giant Foam Fingers! SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to see Kronos fight another Kronos in GC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, spawn two of them and confuse/decieve spam?

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to call me illogical, back it up by pointing out specific fallacies. If you don't then you're simply trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did--your statment that indicates a kinetic's damage is equivalent to a blasters--"that is, your personal sustainable damage - is within a hair's breadth of the blasters"--ignores the very important detail of a less efficient attack chain, and much less AOE potential. It isn't within a hair's breadth, and no juggling of the numbers will make it so.

Impressive for a defender? Of course it is. Ubar Death Smash Highest DPS? Nope, it isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. So, your sustainable damage as a kin/sonic defender - that is, your personal sustainable damage - is within a hair's breadth of the blasters. And this is before level 32 and Fulcrum Shift... Hmmmmmmmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specious conclusion. Your premise includes two (2) siphon powers at all times. That means your attack chain is roughly half as efficient as the blaster's...because you need to toss a SP in there throughout your chain to keep yourself doubled.

The rest of your thesis suffers from similar logic errors...but then most class v class comparisons do tend to ignore the little details in order to do a little nerf herding.

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of hated decisions weren't even Jack's fault

[/ QUOTE ]

My boss frequently takes the [censored] jobs so that players have someone to focus their hate on, while giving the glory jobs to his junior coders. It's a good working system, and the hallmark of a good boss.

I'm sure States resembles a supervillain for many of the same reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
There were other solutions. Take off the blind fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Never be a cynic, even a gentle one. Never help out a sneer, even at the devil."--Vachel Lindsay

Take off your own. Your rabid attack posts are not helping matters. You can go wrong just as easily by being too cynical as you can by being too optimistic.

Except cynics are often happy to use their cynicism as a good excuse to be rude.

[ QUOTE ]
Boomtown is a great place, and I hope they develop more missions that call for you to go to this place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading this now, it almost brings a tear to the eye.

Boomtown: Such a Waste.
Perez Park: The Way Things Were.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I PERSONALLY don't care what a bean counter would think. I care what me the player thinks. I know the new content is coming. I7 is around the corner. There's there new content. I'd rather they fix some of the bugs V brought with it than waste time working on a system that can't figure out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but as a continuing-account holder, your financial impact is less valuable than selling a new box is. It is an unfortunate truth of the MMO world that rushing out the new expansion (full of bugs and irritating to the current players) covers the cost of the coming year's development through box sales.

Players get ticked off with all the bugs and leave, but they are replaced at an equivalent (or higher) rate from the new box sales in the short term.

Short term--to our detriment, all beancounters think in the short term. Welcome to corporate America, already in progress.

[ QUOTE ]
I think fixing a system and/or bug and/or glitch on live will always take priority over a concept or alpha build of something.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would be wrong.

Bug fixes don't sell new boxes, but new content does. From a beancounter's standpoint, your dev staff should spend 5% (or less) of their time bug fixing/retrofitting old code, and the vast majority of man hours on new development.

Most dev bosses invest more time in bug squishing than that, of course, but there are an awful lot of MMOs out there where you can still find bugs that were in the game at release, or early beta.

And the existance of blappers for PvP is likely the ultimate undoing of any attempt by the devs to fix the blaster secondaries.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, at Mach 3 it gets mighty chilly without pants."

[/ QUOTE ] Classic!

[/ QUOTE ]

And superspeeding through those thorn bushes in Perez...

Wagon for the band

[ QUOTE ]
Valentine's day: The martyrdom of St. Valentinus, a martyr within the city of Rome. (The romance stuff is purely medieval legend, though.) There's your toga for the Feast of the Martyrdom of St. Valentine.

[/ QUOTE ]

"As Christianity began to slowly and systematically dismantle the pagan pantheons, it frequently replaced the festivals of the pagan gods with more ecumenical celebrations. It was easier to convert the local population if they could continue to celebrate on the same days... they would just be instructed to celebrate different people and ideologies..

Lupercalia, with its lover lottery, had no place in the new Christian order. In the year 496 AD, Pope Gelasius did away with the festival of Lupercalia, citing that it was pagan and immoral. He chose Valentine as the patron saint of lovers, who would be honored at the new festival on the fourteenth of every February. The church decided to come up with its own lottery and so the feast of St. Valentine featured a lottery of Saints. One would pull the name of a saint out of a box, and for the following year, study and attempt to emulate that saint.

Confusion surrounds St Valentine's exact identity. At least three Saint Valentines are mentioned in the early martyrologies under the date of February 14th. One is described as a priest in Rome, another as a Bishop of Interamna, now Terni in Italy, and the other lived and died in Africa.

The Bishop of Interamna is most widely accepted as the basis of the modern saint. He was an early Christian martyr who lived in northern Italy in the third century and was put to death on February 14th around 270 AD by the orders of Emperor Claudius II for disobeying the ban on Christianity. However, most scholars believe Valentine of Terni and the priest Valentine of Rome were the same person. "

http://www.meridiangraphics.net/lupercalia.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Those weren't facts. Those were statistics based on assumptions on top of a nastygram about how my sample size was too small to conclude that my accuracy was floored.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to test a question about probability (accuracy in this case), sample size needs to be large enough to overcome the probable error of estimate...as sample size increases, error of estimate narrows.

The math is arcane for non statisticians, but you can plug in a couple of values (StDev, your desired confidence for maximum error of estimate) and get the minimum N number of trials required to make a statistically good test. Your sample size simply wasn't large enough to make any factual statements (you may be right, you may be wrong, but you cannot be *certain* with a sample that small).

You can have capped accuracy (95%) and still miss 5 of 6 attacks, with perfectly fair dice...the entire point of the original response. It will "feel" exactly the same as floored accuracy (5%), if you put trust in your intuition and not accurate data.