Radio_Silence
-
Posts
13 -
Joined
-
Quote:Awhile back, I created a time mechanic who doesn't believe in actual time travel. This resulted in my having to try to do some mapping of how time travel might function in a multiverse set (since it otherwise wreaks merry hell with things like thermodynamics).Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Putting my physics hat on, that statement has a lot of issues with it. But let me suggest one possible, if very speculative way around it. First of all, Praetoria does not seem to be an alternate timeline of our reality, but rather an alternate dimension with a parallel timeline. Its a completely different universe, in other words.
The result was a model of inter-dimensional physics where what we perceive as time travel is transit within very proximate universes at earlier or later states, with the appearance of changing history owing to confirmation bias and illusory correlation.
The problem with time travel being that, with an infinite or near infinite (that is, so numerous as to appear infinite from our perspective) number of destinations, you're standing inside a target rich environment. If you're aiming where you're standing, there's a decent chance of hitting something that looks enough like your target to fool you.
All timelines then, proximate or wildly divergent, are entirely parallel universes that may be proceeding through history at slightly different rates, with different values for matter and energy...not all universes need be created equal nor remain static (we observe and often /are/ matter and energy transiting between them), though broad similarities may be observed within a given set (since we're dealing with the Cityverse sets, we get repeating themes like Marcus Cole as a Nationalist for wildly varying ideologies from instance to instance, Cole and Richter at the Well of Furies with variances on who gets imbued with what old god, the foundation of a central metropolis around which major events turn because they tend to be drawn to these figures with variations on actual region, abnormally high efficiency/high energy organisms et cetera.)
Choice matters, but there is a tendency for closely matched instances to make the same or at least very similar choices, so any given pair of universes can go for a long time before significant differences show up above the individual level (you might favor wheat bread while another instance favors Ezekiel bread, but that kind of detail tends to be lost on the casual observer while everyone notices 'little' details like a hot-running cold war and the general biosphere of the planet being eaten by a deranged squidmoeba.)
This is especially important once you start looking at universes in different stages of development, since it creates the appearance of loops and paradoxes at the individual level, without actually violating causality. An instance of you in an older universe will tend to do what you would do, and in traveling to your younger universe will tend to set you up to do what they would do when your history reaches that stage of development.
You can't see the forest through the mes. -
Some thoughts on the DA narrative, in particular the Personal 'Arcs'.
I don't feel the NPC's here are stealing the limelight. They aren't stealing my character's thunder or saving the day in their own right. These are little more than intermission vignettes between plot that give a little insight into the supporting cast.
It shows us something of how they came to be in a position to feed our characters information about the events unfolding in DA. They can provide a vehicle for demonstrating the effect our choices have on other inhabitants of the world once we've otherwise moved on.
As to the problem of storytelling...that's part of what any DM does. If one does not like participating in the stories the Paragon Studios collective DM is writing, there's always the AE.
But it's not reasonable to expect them not to tell a story in a storytelling medium.
Can they do more to involve us in that story? Yes. Are they?
Yes.
City of Heroes offers the player far more agency in determining the flow and outcome of stories than virtually any other MMORPG on the market. It's not Shakespeare or Fallout, or even a particularly robust CYOA novel, but there's a clear trend towards giving more responsibility to the player as a storytelling agent.
And if you don't like the stories they're telling, they've given us tools to tell our own...independently, or to others.
Claiming that they are forcing you to do something you choose to do comes across as somewhat disingenuous. The idea that we are forced to do the Personal Arcs if we choose to do DA is arguably the same as saying "I have to play Dark Astoria to play Dark Astoria."
You choose your own level of participation. -
I completely forgot I had one! That would shave a pretty significant chunk of time off.
Of course, in the spirit of Worst Case Scenario, twelve minutes is still a pretty good ballpark for someone who has nothing more than sprint and some temp powers.
Less, of course, since as I think on it, even without the Pocket D porter you can catch the truck to the D in Shark and skip Indy faster than you can get to Janus anyway.
This is a very connected game we have here. -
Quote:From Thorn Tree to Faathim on a level 40 Rogue Mastermind using Stealth, Sprint with Stealth, Ninja Run and a Jetpack from the FBZ Vendor, about twelve minutes total including time spent evading midair Watchers and circling the Chantry from the wrong side, evading more Watchers.Originally Posted by Mistress Rue
I know this is slightly off-topic, but I simply can't resist...
I'd love for someone to time the trip from the Thorn Tree on Thorn Isle in Nerva Archipelago, to Faathim the Kind in The Chantry - to make it fair, let's assume it's on a Rogue, so using Ouro to hop blueside as the first step isn't an option
I'll do it myself later, of course (can't right now, at work) - but thought I'd throw it out there as a sort of open challenge
-
Quote:I've been chewing on some thoughts about this lately, which may be pertinent.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Psychologically speaking, that's an enormous perceptual skew to have to factor out of anyone's observations.
A large part of what forms our perceptions of a thing stem from our first impressions of it.
There are, I suspect, a few things that contribute to a first impression of Blasters as sharp soloists and things like Defenders as less so. One of these is that the old blue side game favored an offensive strategy pretty heavily. The mobs lacked mitigation, and did comparatively little in return that player mitigation was largely irrelevant.
So at career start, a Blaster is in a Blaster's paradise...it's very difficult to make incorrect or self harming build choices since all their options are one form or another of 'Hit things harder', and the only thing they have to worry about is hitting things until the things fall over. They move quickly, ascending up through the early stages of the game with apparent ease.
This is less true Red side and in Praetoria in the modern game, but it still works to some extent. You need a working attack chain to fight. Damage gains XP, Defense does not. Lacking mitigation early on, Blasters can only choose to do more damage.
It is possible for a Defender in the same stages to make build choices that are less than helpful, and there's a subtle tendency to want to focus on one's Primary since...that's what this character is supposed to be, right? But in an environment where mitigation is of marginal use, any choice that gives mitigation is taken at the expense of DPS. Against the more dangerous low level mobs, such as Vahzilok who actively debuff DPS through -Recharge, such choices can prove lethal.
This, in addition to lower DPS to begin with, may contribute to a perception that Defenders are harder to play, and certainly less fun/more tedious/slower than their Blaster peers.
This all breaks down as they advance and begin encountering situations where mitigation is increasingly relevant and the Blaster has few to no good choices left to make, but by that point perceptions are fairly well set.
You only get one chance to make a first impression, and no matter what else happens Blasters hit the ground running in a way Defenders do not. -
Quote:Not as character level advances, but as difficulty level increases. The comparison between Blaster and Defender at any arbitrary level during normal play, as difficulty settings increase.Originally Posted by Chyll
Blasters have mitigation beyond just out-damaging the oppponents, and that becomes more available at high levels too (i.e., KB, holds in ice, etc.) So I wouldn't be quick to say it gets worse as a player advances.
ie: A Level 25 Blaster and a Level 25 Defender in solo play against the same mission instance with the same mobs. At -1/x1, we would tend to expect the Blaster to outperform because a Blaster's tools against lower level targets are vastly more powerful with vastly less effort than a Defender at the same time.
As you scale up to even con or higher, and across larger spawns, the Defender's improved ability to mitigate inbound damage will begin to mean more than the Blaster's high base damage, as more targets are able to survive the Blaster's initial assaults and retaliate. -
Quote:Their best mez protection is offered to others, but the prevalence of powers which offer direct mez protection to the Defender itself is about the same, in particular to hard mez including Holds which would otherwise prevent the Defender from acting at all.Originally Posted by Chyll
Granted, the AT as a whole has more survivability tools.
My point was - mez protection (as highlighted in the discussion) - is largely ally targeted (with some exceptions).
This places them in a broadly superior position over the course of the game. Blasters have limited actions they can take while mezzed, but Defenders can avoid or reduce significant mez altogether with no investment exterior to the AT itself.
It is worth noting, however, that the worst case scenario for Defenders on the Mez front is being in the same basic position as Blasters (lacking direct mez protection), while always carrying significantly better general mitigation.Quote:Originally Posted by Chyll
Set specific high end performers are not a good basis for overall comparison. But, agreed, Rad is the shizzle.
Defenders are a quirky comparison here, since Vigilance grants them a 30% damage buff while solo. This puts them slightly ahead of Corruptor base DPS in solo play. Scourge helps Corruptors pull ahead, but only in a relatively small cross section of play is that by a significant margin.Quote:Originally Posted by Chyll
Solo, same difficulty settings.... I'd argue that Blasters are easier/more pleasant to solo for the average player. And that comes down to DPS, ultimately, so I stand by my opinion/experience.
That said, I'd probably slide Corrs ahead of Blasters, for the reasons you noted.
Solo, at the same difficulty settings, Defenders are apt to outperform Blasters through sustainability. At lower difficulty levels the gap will be less obvious (even becoming effectively non-extent below a certain threshold) because mitigation means less when there is less to mitigate, and Blaster DPS will tend to be high enough to mitigate through murder anyway.
At higher difficulty levels, the gap will become increasingly apparent as Blasters lose the ability to survive against hostile mobs by destroying them first and start spending more time doing 0 DPS while chewing pavement or flying back from hospitals.
As far as subjective experience goes, in the end it boils down to how you want to play. I would not say it is impossible to have fun playing a Blaster, but I also wouldn't say that Blasters are performing well in their own right. This is the real crux of the various conversations about Blaster performance: Should Blasters be altered in some fashion to provide better overall performance compared to other ATs?
Available data suggests that, from an objective standpoint, they should. -
Quote:Defender primaries grant all sorts of mitigation through buffs (some of which affect the user while providing mez resistance or outright protection, see Accelerated Metabolism, Dispersion Bubble, Force Field Generator, et cetera), debuffs (effective +Def and Res through reducing the inbound DPS of hostile mobs, or effective +To Hit and Damage by reducing hostile defense) and heals.Originally Posted by Chyll
Doesn't the average defender have less mitigation against Mez (their powers, by and large, are not self targeting while the blaster gets freedom to use some abilities), and access to the same general blast set mitigation so little real appreciable difference there. I cannot see, or agree, that blasters are at the bottom of the mez and, consquently, (following your logic) DPS food chain.
Some sets, notably Radiation Emission, are perennial favorites because they bring all of it together to create an extremely effective whole that allows the user to reach performance curves far outside the expected baseline for the AT with a fairly minimal amount of investment.
Even without that though, given the tools available to them, it isn't difficult to imagine a scenario where a Defender is able to outperform a Blaster through sheer survivability. -
Tangent:
If I were going to try to implement the ability to lift and utilize in violent fashion arbitrary world objects like...say...cars...in City, I would probably start with a new 'mez' type: Lift.
Objects (which are also a kind of ersatz Mob) would have Lift protection, and powers would have Lift. You could, from here, implement the ability to slot for Lift either directly in any power with Lift or through an addition to, say, Fitness.
If you use Lift on something and exceed it's Lift protection, you inherit a temporary power based on the object lifted. Generally something like 'Throw Car', 'Swing Lamppost', what have you, but you might close out access to some of your other powers because you're busy swinging heavy objects at people.
Since objects are functionally mobs, one can extend this concept to Lifting, say, Hellions and throwing them around, which veers into some amusing territory. If Lifted objects/mobs can still be targeted and interacted with otherwise normally, then there are some interesting permutations to be explored with Lift as a kind of high tradeoff Mez: Your Super Strength Tank with a bunch of Lift slotting might be able to pin Doctor Vahzilok for a few seconds while everyone else beats on him, but you're otherwise just standing there with a bag of angry mad scientist over your head, possibly still beating on /you/ because it can't get at anyone else.
There's also the question of what powers should be /able/ to execute Lifts and under what circumstances. You wouldn't want to put it on all of Super Strength, or even necessarily much of it because you'd wind up Lifting everything every time you went to do anything.
There's a temptation to put Lift on Brawl, but that does strange things to Brawls current utility.
Alternatively, of course, returning to the expanded pool powers, one could simply drop a 'Lift' power into whatever Pool was used to gate Lift.
Either way, there's a staggering amount of legwork involved in implementing something like this (making sure every object has appropriate Lift states/grant powers, etc. if it can be Lifted, requisite art and animation resources, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseam), even assuming it is overall desirable to do so. Never mind the problems of balance and potential mad recursion (...a Player Lifting a Player Lifting a Mob in a PvP zone, for instance, or the whole question of how to handle Lifting players at all, because a Player Lifting a Mob Lifting a Player...), or clashes with existing Repel/Knock functionality (perhaps it could be executed as an extension of those?).
It's an amusing thought experiment anyway, though I'll stop here to suggest that it might be getting a bit far from the discussion at hand.
/Tangent -
Quote:I was also thinking that one could do something with a different IP using similar core gameplay, though that does run into re-inventing the wheel a bit. I do think this wheel has a lot of room left to roll around in.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I could see the IP itself being used in a different game. There's all sorts of crazy things you could do. You could make a RTS game involving the Rikti War, for example. But RTS games require very precise balancing in a way the current dev team doesn't in CoH, meaning there isn't a lot of existing tools and skills to leverage there. A Leisure Suit Larry with Lightsabers MMO like TOR is would be a massive content writing undertaking, and I doubt something that big would be in play at Paragon. A mobile conversion would be a possibility; they might want to stretch their MTX legs a bit.
I think that is all unlikely, but possible.
The objective would be to use such a project to acquire the funding and resources necessary to develop better /tools/, both for the production of the proposed unquel and for facilitating development of City itself. Things that existing resources could be ported into with (relative) ease once those tools existed, which does make staying within the City IP attractive.
As you've mentioned, there's no technical limitation to what can be added to the game as it sits, but there do seem to be some technical constraints which make certain tasks more circuitously difficult than they need to be with long term solutions laying out of logistically reasonable reach.
Of course, if Paragon decides and is able to solve such issues /without/ resorting to Project X Tangent tactics, I certainly am not going to complain. -
Warning: Armchair development ahead. Please take this with a grain of SCR.
Arcanaville has already remarked on the obstacles sitting before a direct sequel.
What would be the viability of making a non-direct sequel? That is, something /not/ aimed at the same audience, but built in broadly similar principles. A single player CRPG, for instance, or some other smaller scale offering which could be used as a platform for developing tech that could be re-applied in City such as a new engine and/or more modular/streamlined art and power systems?
Not a trivial process by any means (serious difficulties arise in coordination between such projects, and requiring the unquel to encompass both City and it's own design goals sounds a bit shaky even as I suggest it), but it might be an idea worth chewing on?
*Edit: There are other practical issues involved in executing massive overhauls not addressed here, porting art assets among them, which will not necessarily be made easier by this suggestion. I don't have it in me to try to catalog all of them at this time, but I'd suggest taking a long view of the logistics that go into building, let alone rebuilding, any game while keeping the whole project solvent. -
"Dress up as a solitary ranger, a Hero with no name, or a sizzling firecracker"
...so I said to myself, self? Why not all three?
I don't know what this does to contribute to the cause of gender equality in costume parts, but I can't stop giggling. He just looks so much happier than any of us about this whole thing. -
To address methods in which the community might adapt to particular circumstances...would those holding CCs consider holding a winner or runner-up's prize money effectively in escrow if the recipient were unable to claim it at the time?
A bit of a honey pot methodology, but you know what they say about flies.