Samuel_Tow
-
Posts
14730 -
Joined
-
I apologise for dragging this one out of a pit, but with Freedom entering Beta and showing me what powerset combos on what ATs I can have, it's made me think about it once more. With your permission, I'd like to give the original thread a new lease of life, as well as an infodump update. Here goes...
Decided
The Herald of Light I'm pretty confident I want to turn into a Sword/Shield Brute. I don't really have one of those, and I can't think of a more important concept to hold the spot for, so I think this one is mostly finished. The starting shields are pretty bad, though. I hope some of the unlockable ones will show up in the Paragon Market. This one should be decided.
Dediced
For Morten, sometimes, the less I think about things, the easier they are to decide. I went back and forth between Scrapper, Stalker, Dark, Energy and so forth, but I think the simplest solution is to just go with my gut and make her an Energy/Energy Stalker. It fits her nature as a creature who feeds on and thrives on energy, and I can avoid the "dark" aspect of her powers by claiming she has left that behind. I'll think of a more meaningful story when it comes to that, but Energy/Energy should have the right feel to it. I'll save Dark/Dark for someone less flamboyant.
Decided
Hatarla I think I'll leave alone. I played her some as a Katana/Will Scrapper and the combo is fun. Having unlocked the Rularuu Katana for her, I think the look is exactly where it should be - a grizzled, scarred veteran who uses tech, cybernetics, magic and demon weapons, and basically anything she can get her hands on. I don't think she needs a reimagining.
Undecided
Bodyshop is still up in the air. I was hoping that the proliferated powersets would extend to Spines for Brutes so that I could make him a Spines/Regen Brute, but no such luck. I could go for claws, but that's not nearly disgusting enough. I could, as well, go with a Stalker since those have Spines, but I'm not really sure it's appropriate to the concept. Bodyshop may be a hero, but he's a regenerating monster first and foremost. He's not the kind that appears out of the shadows, but more the type rampages. Brute would be excellent for him, but I suspect I'll have to put him on even more of a hiatus while I wait for the next round of proliferations. In the meantime, I'm still open to reinterpretations of his design and powersets, but I want to keep him as close to an unstoppable monster as I can.
Undecided
Cecity I'm still on the fence about. I'd like to make her a DB/SR Scrapper as I don't have one of these and it fits her "sixth sense" concept, but I have to wonder... Would Street Justice not be more appropriate? Obviously, I'll have to see how the animations look when (if) the Beta Market comes back online, but honestly, wouldn't it make sense? Now, truth be told, I essentially jammed an alien concept into a costume design I made to plagiarise Oniblade's Ayumi, so the themes that make Cecity up are a bit... Disparate, but I kind of feel like I should give her some sort of weapon. Or should I? I'm still undecided on this one.
Undecided
Stardiver, by now, has had half her powers decided. I'm pretty confident I want to give her a Titanic Weapon of some sort, but I still haven't the foggiest what actual secondary to give her. I know it can't be Invulnerability or Stone Armour as those are already taken, and her concept is still far, FAR too loose to draw anything meaningful from it, other than "advanced alien tech." I have to wonder, though, if I can't draw on the act of diving into the core of a star itself, and perhaps use Fiery Aura, or hold out and go for an Ice Aura? I'm still undecided on this one, and any help would be appreciated.
Undecided
Valeena is... Still suspect. I want to make her Katana/SomethingThatMakesSense, but I don't know what. I'm kind of sort of thinking Energy Aura, though, as this gives me a convenient excuse for why why a petite bunny girl can survive rockets to the face, but it's still a tad odd. I wouldn't want to make her a Stalker, though, as it just... Doesn't really fit her personality. She's a smart fighter, but not a sneaky fighter, though if we can explain how a ling wingspan glow-in-the-dark half-naked bunny girl is stealthy, I would definitely go for it. I could, however, go the other way around and go with Axe/Shield, surprisingly enough. The Vanguard Shield and Axe are perfect tech for Valeena, as they can grant significant power without requiring too much physical strength to carry and wield. What do you think of that?
I am so lost
For Artegor, I simply do not know, and I haven't really seen much discussion on him that I can remember. Suffice it to say that I'm still looking for help with him and whether I should make him TW/Dark instead of BS/Dark. I really don't know what to do with the guy.
Also, to offset the few concepts that I pinned down, allow me to introduce a couple more under consideration:
New
Mary-Beth is sort of a genetic experiment where animals were experimented on to both make them bigger and stronger and also give them more advanced intellect, enough to work as autonomous operatives, either as soldiers in the field or lone partisans. Mary-Beth is one of the few specimens to survive the experiment, but found herself hated and feared. Lashing out at society, she joined a biker gang of misfits and mutants and tore up the countryside for a few years, until conscience got the better of her. She helped the other misfits turn their lives around and chose to save people instead of hurting them, realising that someone had to do the right thing.
Right now, Mary-Beth is a Mace/Inv Brute, though the only weapon I could use for her was the Legacy War Mace since it was the only one both long and big enough to look like a two-handed weapon. I'm thinking of possibly turning her into a TW/Something Brute, but should I? I mean, she's a 10-foot-tall literal cow girl and strong as an ox, so wouldn't it make more sense to have her fight with the biggest weapon she could find?
New
Jun is my homage to typical fighting Japanese School girls, specifically as evidenced by Street Fighter's Sakura. Her story is a bit different, though - she's the daughter of a super hero couple who inherited a bit of her parents' powers and developed a lot of her own, basically making her into an incredible hand-to-hand fighter. She's tough, fast, strong and light on her feet, but does not exhibit any energy or elemental powers. She's just a very strong teenager.
Right now Jun is using the classic MA/SR framework as best suited for agile hand-to-hand fighters, and it has served her quite well, but I have been wondering if Street Justice may not be better for her. It would be slightly less strict martial arts, but if it has that Shoryuken that I've seen in some of the pics, I doubt it will be much less appropriate. I don't know which way to go on this one, and I'd appreciate any help I can get on the matter.
I apologise for the run-on post, and thank you for your help, both past and future
-
Quote:To be fair, Lethal alone is resisted somewhat more frequently than just Smashing alone, typically by anything made of metal or stone. Off-hand, I can't really remember anything resisting Smashing outside of the two types of zombies we have and Devouring Earth trees. Not only that, but things specifically resistant to Lethal are typically weak to Smashing.Originally Posted by BrandX
Agreed! I think it would be awesome to see it be a 50/50 mix of Smashing/Lethal damage, just because we don't have such a set. I don't think it would give any distinct advantage over any set myself (but I don't know this for 100% certainty), I think it would just make the set just a bit more awesome/unique/interresting and allow future people to say "OMG! Not only is Smashing and Lethal the most resisted damage types, but this set does it both!"
All of this is to say that changing the set from full Smashing to 50/50 Smashing/Lethal would probably end up being somewhat of a nerf
That said, I do agree that it would be an interesting mechanic. Right now with just Smashing damage, you'll end up with a huge sword that can barely hurt shambling soft zombies. I, personally, will subconsciously wonder why that is. With Smashing/Lethal, the difference should be somewhat less pronounced. Sure, the set will end up not being very good or very bad against anything, but that's kind of the point, isn't it? When your weapon is big enough, exactly what you're hitting starts to matter less and less
I'm still looking for decent pics, and I did happen to find a decent source of inspiration. Might want to drop a pic of it here if the thread lasts. -
Quote:It seems odd to me, as well, but the damage type difference between Smashing and Lethal is academic enough for me to let it slide. We have to account for objects as disparate as a sword and a sign, so I can see it, and it won't make my excitement that much worse.Originally Posted by BrandX
Making it completely Smashing damage seems odd to me, when you have Buster Sword and a big piece of wood (?) with lots of pointy opjects in it.
Still, I'd have liked to see it be a mix between Smashing and Lethal, if only because we don't really have that as a set's thing. -
Quote:OK, I agree, but consider this - where are those "ala carte" players going to come from? They're certainly not intended to come from the existing subscribing population, I don't think, as that seems like it would be a net loss from the company. So I assume they are expected to come out of the ranks of the free players. But the problem is that this remains a purchasable game like it always was, but it's being presented as a F2P title, at least externally. Yes, I'm well aware that the developers have gone out of their way to disagree with that classification, but the reason people keep bringing it up is because the model "feels" a lot like this.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The "free" play is a necessary evil: a means to an end. Its the degenerate case of an ala carte player that doesn't buy anything. We have subscribers, and we have ala carte players. The special case of ala carte (Premium) players that buy literally nothing are the Free players. The actual target of Freedom are the subscribers and the Premium players. Those are the people we want. Paragon believes that will be more than what we have now, and plenty enough to sustain the game. They want thousands of Premium players. They don't need - or even want - millions of free players. That's not their goal.
The reason I say City of Heroes "wants to have it both ways" is that I agree with you on a fundamental level - the developers still want you to purchase "the game," or at least something from their stores, preferably as an entry fee to justify the support you are receiving. They also want you to thereafter pay a subscription fee. In intended operation, this is not in the slightest different from the model we have now - you buy the game, then you pay a monthly subscription. But the entire drive behind the move appears aimed towards attracting new players, and attracting them with free stuff. So what we have right now is a game that's still following a traditional model of "purchase + subscription," but also looking to expand by drawing from the population of people looking for a "free" game.
Personally, I don't say that Free players should have teaming options out of some sense of solidarity. I'm saying this from a purely practical standpoint - if I get into a game with a Free option and I like it, I'll call up my friends, praise the game and get them to play it. If we find out we can't play together unless I pay as I did with World of Tanks, then I'm just as likely to go "Cabage it! We'll find another game where we can play together!" and instead go play Spiral Knights (if their CS could respond faster than once per month) or the Hellgate London zombie or one of the others. Because, really, if I can't play an MMO with my friends - and this may sound odd coming from me - then I'm highly unlikely to even bother unless said MMO is GRRRATE! By contrast, if I CAN play with my friends and stick around to develop some familiarity and habit for the MMO, I'm going to consider paying for it, and consider it seriously.
I get limiting Free accounts down severely, but I just feel that taking away one of the biggest hooks of an MMO is a step too far. -
I will spend it all to pay for the Paragon Store to go online so I can see what's for sale.
-
Quote:I disagree. I always saw BABs first and foremost as an unstoppable force before he was a dirty fighter. He's been portrayed as such everywhere I've seen him, and his tremendous presence is what garners him the respect he has. Street Justice is an unfair, dirty fighting technique that fighters use to close an otherwise problematic power gap. BABs doesn't need this, because any power gap that exists is usually in his favour. He's a "heavy" much more so than he is a fighter.Originally Posted by Endless Waltz
With Street Justice to be released, I've had an epiphany. Whether or not BABs bite's it in the upcoming Signature Arc's. I would suggest that BABs gets a retcon into a more truer representation of his perceived abilities. I move that he be made into a Willpower/Street Justice Tanker, instead of being the mechanically Baby Statesman I've -ALWAYS- felt him to be. His name BACK ALLEY BRAWLER just screams Street Justice. His starting in the Paragon PD, forming the Regulators, quotes, and general personality point in the direction that he has incredible WILLPOWER! []I know it can be weird to make a Willpower NPC[] Keep the Energy Melee attacks with respect due to his "Power Gloves." But for the love of Pete. The BACK ALLEY BRAWLER should be WILLPOWER/STREET JUSTICE, you all know it's true. No *handwave* he's different now, but this is how he should been from the get go, but they just didn't have to tech to make him yet.
-
Aw... And I was hoping we'd see the actual Titanic Weapons. Still, that answers the question of whether it's Smashing, Lethal or Smashing/Lethal - it's Smashing. Good enough, I suppose.
-
Quote:I didn't even notice that, actually. I figured that since I was trying to alter my subscription to City of Heroes, I'd have to do it from the City of Heroes account. I'll definitely try swapping cards from there and see if that affects what CoH is subscribing off of. Then again, I'm not sure where I can check that.Originally Posted by Crystal_Smoke
Sam, I see a Change Card link under Billing Summary in the NCSoft account screen.
EDIT: Hmm...come to think of it, that might be just the card you need to have on file so you can purchase things like character slots and respecs from the login screen. So...not sure. In the past, I believe I did have to effectively cancel and resub to change info, and it was indeed a scary process. I don't think I ever lost anything, such as vet time, but could not say with 100% certitude.
---
Funny note - when I click to cancel my account, I get warned of the repercussions, then asked "Are you sure you want to cancel?" I had to stop and pause for a second before hitting the "Cancel" button because... Wait, what AM I actually saying? Obviously, when presented with a choice between OK and Cancel, Cancel is the one that retracts the request, but in this context...
-
You know, I've seen a few parody posts already criticising the ridiculous costumes of the Circle of Thorns, and while I don't disagree... Isn't that kind of the point? I mean, look at even the legacy mages - funny hats are what we wanted. What I wanted, anyway. They ARE ridiculous and absurd wizards, but that really is how I've always seen them. Sure, the simple robed monks are the first thing we see and what most people remember, but by the later levels even the basic casters are sporting ridiculous shoulders.
And, really, "ridiculous wingspan wizard" designs like in Red Sonya (I think it was) are what I expect the high mages to be. Funny hats, fancy robes and all the other absurd garments that tell you "This man could not walk through doors... Because he doesn't need to!" I honestly feel that this kind of wizardry is very welcome in City of Heroes, where most of our "magic" tends more towards the technomagic aspect, or post-modern aspect of magic. The typical ridiculous wizards you see in much of high fantasy are generally absent from the game, and these guys, I think, do a good job of filling that void.
So, yes, "a flamboyant pope," indeed. But that's what I like about it. -
Thread title, really, but let me elaborate just the same.
My old card that I was using to subscribe to City of Heroes for the last three or four years has expired and I've had a new one issued to me. My bank manager cut it up with scissors, which to me was a novel experience. The point, though, is that now I have to swap to my new card before my bill date is due (which is still a while away, luckily), and I don't seen an option to do this on my PlayNC account. The only way I can think of to do this is to cancel my account billing, then restart it and enter the new card's details, instead.
Here's the kicker, though - won't this somehow interfere with the Paragon Points we're already accumulating towards Freedom? I remember a few people got burned with the Vanguard Pack promotion that required uninterrupted subscription for a few months when they had to swap payment methods or had their cards expire and such, and I was wondering if that won't be a problem when I go about cancelling and resubscribing. I wonder, furthermore, if there isn't some kind of "Swap Card" or "Add Card" option in my game account management that I'm not seeing. I know PayPal have that, but I'm sure they use a different infrastructure.
Basically, thread: Will swapping payment methods interfere with my Paragon Points acquisition and is there a better way to do this than cancelling? -
Quote:I'll excuse you for being needlessly snarky. What, pray tell, did you think this unnecessary low-brow putdown would accomplish? Even if I agreed with the rest of your post (and I kind of do), why do you feel the need to treat me like this? Would it have killed you to stick to the point?Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
So you'll excuse me if I don't buy the market argument. (Or, frankly, have any sympathy for market conditions.)
-
Quote:Electricity doesn't generally have a look or sound when it's flowing through a conductor, but when you pass it through other people or foreign objects to which it does damage, it very much has an effect. That's actually pretty much what the entirety of the original Electrical Blast is - lots of short circuit effects. That's because electricity does damage by producing heat, and one aspect of that heat is light and sound.Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
I don't see electricity crackling around lines or transformers.
I personally see Electrical Armour as a man-scale equivalent of a bug zapper - bullets fly towards you, but get zapped and vaporised when they come near enough, causing no or little damage. If you're powering some kind of electrical instrument inside of power armour, you're looking at Invulnerability or Willpower or such.
Which is precisely why I advocated customization over removal. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's in one of my posts in this very thread. Actually, I can save you the legwork:Quote:Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
Same with Energy Armor - why can't it just be like the Praetorian PPD?
If that is your vision of "no effects," then I'm all in favour of it. I'd like to see all continuous auras be given an "On Impact Only" option where the effect would only play for a second after an impact to that particular shield has been dealt, but would otherwise display no effect at all. For instance, if you're running Fire Shield and Plasma Shield set to "On Impact Only" then you'll be displaying no fire graphics at all. However, when you get hit with a purely physical attack, you'll flash in orange fire to depict fire blocking the impact. If you get hit with a purely elemental attack, you'd flash blue to depict plasma blocking the impact. If you get hit with mixed damage, then you'd apply whatever algorithm chooses whether an attack was dodged, deflected or just plain missed.Quote:Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I would support you in arguing for alternate, less obtrusive effects for Electricity, such as "No Fade or Pulse" like what you get for Obsydian Shield, or effects which only fire for a short when you are attacked, but otherwise remain off, or even effects that are easier on your eyes. That's precisely why Sonic Resonance is orange (and not because BABs locked himself in a dark room and yelled until he saw a colour that happened to be orange, despite what he said at the time).
This isn't about knowing what's running. It's about having at least some semblance of what a set should be. This isn't the Champions system where you pick an attack type and then apply an element to it. Loose though it may be, our powers still have a core design. If you have a power which says you are protecting yourself with fire, then this power needs to display you protecting yourself with fire. Simple as that.Quote:Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
No, I can't say I agree that the armors "need" to have a visual representation. Enemy affecting (or damaging) effects like Electric field, sure - gives an idea of where the area of effect is. But just plain armors? Nope. I can see just fine that they're toggled by looking at the buttons with little comets swirling around them.
Because if you don't have that, where really do you draw the line between being covered in invisible fire and just taking Fiery Aura but customizing it to cover you in ice? The only real thematic difference between powersets is their visuals. If we give people the option to turn off the visuals for all of them, why not just drop all themes in all powersets?
---
Actually, let me reverse the question on you - if you don't like the look of electricity, why pick electricity for a character? If it's for the meta-game only, you lose me entirely, because I will simply never agree with visual effects changes to kowtow to the meta-game. Because meta-game aside, there really aren't all that many "non-effects characters" that can't be made with representative sets already.
Call me unfair, but I don't want to see the core meaning of powersets redefined by people on a whim. If you can make your Dark Scrapper look like a Sand Scrapper, then more power to you, but I would NEVER support adding Sand effects to Dark Armour. In much the same way, I would not support options for sets that don't capitalise on what the set represents, not when these options exist by simply taking other sets.
Again, if I want an axe, I can always pick Battle Axe. I don't get to pick Broadsword and ask for axes to be put in there just because I like Parry more than Swoop. In much the same way, if I picked an Electric Armour Brute, I will play a Brute who is protected BY ELECTRICITY, not by a power armour powered by electricity. As a point of fact, this is precisely the dilemma I went through when Electric/Electric Brutes first came true, and even managed to get Jack Emmert explain why they chose to make Electricity red. I wanted a brute powered by electricity, but whose functional power was that he was very big, very strong and very heavily armoured. Electric/Electric didn't work precisely because it had overt electricity, so I picked SS/Inv, instead, and I'm still glad for it.
Similarly, I chose against making my "energy alien" an Energy/Energy Brute - because it wasn't appropriate for her concept to be stealthy, yet my immobilize protection was in Energy Cloak, so I opted for Willpower, instead and did only a minor re-explanation of her powers.
The bottom line is that there's always another solution. If the problem is conceptual, there are other sets which don't revolve around effects. If the problem is medical, then campaigning for less hurtful effects is the solution. Turning sets into what they are not, however, is never a viable solution as far as I'm concerned, not officially at any rate. Under no circumstanced would I ever support the option to make all powersets look the same so you only had to pick the one with the numbers you wanted, and I am not going to be convinced otherwise come hell or high water. -
Quote:And that's the other side of the coin (which I though I also commented on?), in that with the offer of convenience comes engineered inconvenience to "pay away" with money. When I spoke of games becoming less grindy and frustrating as keeping people for long periods of time was less important than getting them to spend money, I knew there would be a push to not at all remove time sinks, but rather ask people to skip them with money, and indeed design WORSE time sinks that people would suffer through badly if they didn't pay.Originally Posted by Djeannie
I can see it now....
Tired of waiting almost 24 hours to gain another Emperyian merit or cash in some Reward merits? Dislike waiting for your "Fame/Renown" to wear down for tip missions? Check out these new temp powers below!
Cooldown Timer Reduction Token ~ 125pp: Reduce a single cooldown timer in the game by 50%. Just use the temp power right after an ingame cooldown to cut it's timer down by 50%.
Cooldown Timer Removal Token ~ 200pp: Remove a single cooldown timer in the game. Just ue the temp power right after an ingame cooldown timer to remove its effect.
In your average F2P game that everyone plays everything for free, I can KIND OF see this as being excusable. After all, there is no "paying class" and you have to make money out of somewhere. But in City of Heroes: Freedom, we who still subscribe will remain VIPs. We will still be paying for a game, so paying off old deliberate time sinks or even introducing new ones comes off as telling me that I'm not paying quite enough. It's one thing to ask a person playing FOR FREE to pay more to enjoy more of the game. It's quite another to ask a person ALREADY PAYING A SUBSCRIPTION to pay more or suffer.
Now, all of this is not a criticism of the Freedom model. I don't know exactly how that will work and what it will offer. It's just a general expression of concern in relation to putting paying subscribers in a position where they feel like "Freeloaders" by introducing massive benefits at an extra cost. -
I believe the lack of recipe storage is a way to ensure a steady supply on the Market. You sell what you can't keep and buy what you need. Let people hoard recipes, though, and the market slows down, and slows down hard.
-
Quote:I'm really not speaking of "fair" or "unfair" so much as I am speaking about attitude. I'm aware that Free players are treated as prospective customers, but with an unlimited trial come problems. When you have a 14-day trial, the game can go out of its way to give you everything awesome you can imagine... For 14 days. Would you like more? Well, buy the full version! But when that trial is unlimited, other means must be used to get people to buy the game and not just squat the trial, and this is where problems start to occur.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
So when people talk about how "unfair" it is that "free customers" don't get this, or don't get that; when they talk about how important it is we treat them like paying customers, I believe that usually either they don't understand what the Paragon model actually is, or they don't believe it will work and don't see the need to prove or even acknowledge this belief before immediately presuming that some other model is ultimately the one they will have to pursue. We aren't designing City of Heroes around the premise that we should give the entire game away and make cosmetic enhancements for people to buy. We are usurping the free to play model to make a trial version of the game that we believe will entice people to either play ala carte and/or eventually subscribe.
The two major ways that I see this problem being approached are through sugar or vinegar, as I mentioned before. You can either present people with what looks like a great game that money will make monumentally better, thus relying on people's willingness to invest in the games that they like, or otherwise present them with a horrible game that can become great if you pay for it, thus relying on people's desire to resist rage-quitting. I suppose that with a the Freedom model, Free players quitting doesn't really matter since they're always free to come back next week, but I just disagree with with intentionally kneecapping people's fun to strongarm them into subscribing.
I'm really not talking about giving everything away for free, but I still feel that - as we've discussed before - teaming should be one of the things given away still. That's not because I feel Free players "deserve" it or that it's "unfair" to keep it from them, but rather because I feel that if people could team, they're more likely to stick around, and if they stick around, they're more likely to pay for something or other. City of Heroes: Freedom seems to want to have it both ways - it's not a game you have to purchase before you can play, but it still kind of wants to be a game that you kind of have to pay for before you can really play it, and I'm not sure this model will work very well. If you want to get people to pay up-front, sell your product. If you want nickel-and-dime people, then give them a strong base game.
---
I will agree, though, that Korean grindfest F2P MMOs don't treat their paying customers any better than their free customers, because those MMOs treat everyone like garbage. I respect City of Heroes more than practically any other MMO I've played - and I've played a few - specifically because this is the only MMO which has ever made me feel welcome. That counts for a lot. -
Quote:I'm actually all for asking for alternate effects, and speaking of ice armour, "skintight ice" has often been suggested. And I agree completely. Speaking of electricity, I can certainly see lower-visibility electricity at play, or something more restrained. Choice is always good.Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
I can appreciate what you are saying, but thanks to IOs, many characters can deflect attacks with no rational explanation whatsoever. If someone wants to claim they are surrounded in invisible Ice armor I think they are obviously mistaken, but to me this isn't the same as saying the only way a cold based armor makes sense is if you can actually see a solid sheet of ice wrapped around the player. I think players need to take individual responsibility for making sure their powers makes sense for their concept, whether this means using some of the effects but not all, using auras to achieve the desired effect, or having some other explanation for why their powers look the way they do (e.g. "I am made of Ice, not wrapped in it.")
However, I cannot agree with giving people the option to pick no effect for physical effect powers. Again, this would be like picking Battle Axe and choosing "None" as your weapon. Certain sets simply require that they show SOMETHING. I can agree with that something being meaningful, but if they describe a physical effect, then need to show a physical effect. -
Quote:While the insult is appreciated, your logical fallacy remains evident. This actually reminds me of an IQ test question: "If some greens are reds and some reds are blues, can we say that some greens blues?" No, we cannot, because we have no guarantee.Originally Posted by Lothic
My simple conclusion, which I think a 3rd grader could figure out and accept, is that if the Devs had bothered to put the same amount of effort into Walk as they did for Ninja Run they would have probably also charged extra money for it. Probably is the operative word - if the Devs thought a full travel power was worth extra money (for WHATEVER reason) it's quite likely a fully functional Walk would demand extra money as well. This logical step is incredibly reasonable and straightforward. It's easily provable that new "real" travel powers introduced since 2004 (e.g. Jump Pack, Ninja Run, Beast Run and Steam Jump) have all cost players extra money - if Walk had been a fully fleshed out travel power all evidence suggests that they would have also charged for it.
You take facts: Ninja Run cost money, Ninja Run is a travel power, Ninja Run works with powers, Walk is a travel power of sorts. However, the conclusions you draw from them are the very definition of inductive logic. You postulate that these facts are cause and effect. Because Ninja was a travel power in a pack we had to pay for, Walk being a travel power of sorts would also cost us money. This is inductive logic because it starts with a premise - Walk would cost us money - and then works backwards to draw up a reasonable justification. The problem with inductive logic is that it's exclusive - it proves only a single assertion, but does not bother to disprove all other assertions. Inductive logic, therefore, is useful for setting up goals, but not useful for providing conclusive proof.
You are basing your entire argument on what most would call circumstantial evidence. What you have consistently and it seems intentionally ignored is what is at this point fairly common knowledge about the animations system, which BABs went to great lengths to explain. You base your entire argument on the assertion that fitting Walk to work with all other powers would be some kind of monumental task with the only evidence to that fact being that the developers haven't done this. This is easily disproved by the fact that the developers have thus far failed to fix the ugly typos in Maria Jenkins' description, which were not fixed even when her entire character model was updated and her missions and story arcs were updated, as well. This change has not been held back because it's a colossal amount of work we would have to buy a "Fixed oru spelling!" Booster Pack to justify it. It hasn't been fixed because no-one has been arsed to fix it. When people have pointed out typos in my own Architect missions, I have gone into the editor and fixed them within the span of five minutes, and I lack actual development tools.
You take an issue which in BABs' own words was one of priorities and turn it into one of cost of investment, and it simply isn't, not based on everything we know about how the animations system works. To even suggest that all powers would need to be reanimated to work with Walk is not just the height of absurdity, but is also easily provable to be false.
Your argument is largely empty because you're drawing an inductive conclusion based on circumstantial evidence while completely ignoring the elephant in the room of what Ninja Run itself cost and what part of that cost accounts for its animations budget. This is the same height of empty musing as trying to deduce the number of active game accounts based on PlayNC's box sales earnings in WON. You can claim it, but it'll still "probably" be incorrect.
Well, as a player, I know what the actual developers in charge of the actual code have said on the matter. BABs spoke at length on the subject, and nothing he ever said spoke of difficulty, time or cost. All he ever talked about was priorities and, frankly, I'm pretty sure the guy just didn't want to bother. Considering the reception the power got, if I were him, I'd certainly have felt like saying "Yeah, lettuce you, too! See if I waste my time making free stuff for you again!" I'm sure Bruce was above that, but when it came down to it, this got worked on when he felt like working on it, and once he put it in the game, he didn't feel like working on it.Quote:Originally Posted by Lothic
As a player I certainly don't have any experience with the code involved here. But as software engineer with almost 20 year of professional experience I can make some educated guesses about the relative difficulty to implement something like Ninja Run versus something like Walk. That's all I need for a general discussion of this nature without making the pure assumptions you accuse me of.
Also as a player, I know what BABs has said about the animations system and how activation sequences work. These aren't a question of animating animations or manipulating player rigs. They're a question of programming the rigs on how they operate. It is work, obviously, but it's not ARTWORK. -
I assume that if an "Inventions Power Pool" were ever put into the game as a system, it would come with its own, specially-balanced powers. To ask that the existing temps - balanced with the notion that they run out - be used perpetually is just absurd. That's bad game design. But that doesn't mean that we can't have a power pool that you create powers for via the Inventions system nevertheless.
-
Quote:B before C! Damn it, I will remember this!Originally Posted by IanTheM1
Other way around, actually.
I'm pretty sure Electric Mastery is superior to Foce Mastery, yes, and the disparity between the two shields is staggering. In general, I feel Epics need to get a another look and rebalance, and we could probably use quite a few more.Quote:Originally Posted by IanTheM1
Before someone chimes in with "individual powers aren't balanced against each other!" I'll say that I think I'm safe in claiming that Elec Mastery as a whole is superior to Primal Forces Mastery as a whole. From a purely logical standpoint, one would expect an ancillary set with that much control to have a slightly weaker shield rather than one of, if not the, strongest around, and a rather lacking pool like Primal Forces to have a stronger than normal shield with more than a miniscule 2.5% extra resistance. -
This thread immediately gives me two inescapable thoughts:
1. These costumes are AWESOME! I love 'em! To be honest... I kind of like those better than what we had before This isn't so much of a reimagining as a straight-up improvement, and I am very much in favour of it. If I can use those funny hats on my characters... Well, "Shut up and take my money!" essentially
2. I'm glad I resisted the urge to join the cries of "They're treating us like idiots!" because Matt Miller was right - seeing better pictures with more of the complete set on them did matter. Nevertheless, the extreme violent reaction did get rid of CoT in Tights, and for this I feel much of that thread was worth it.
Corollary: Please give us a larger picture, if you haven't already. The thread is up to 17 pages and I haven't checked the Dev Digest yet, but if you haven't, put one in. As a link if you have to. These costumes are too good to squint at from a mile away.
*edit*
A bigger picture does not appear to show up in either the list of digested developers or moderators. We need a bigger one, please. -
Quote:So how about the bug where people on my team perpetually display as in another zoning in so I can never see their health bars in my team window and I can't see them on my map so if my team-mate gets separated or killed I'll never know about it? Does that count as a bug?Originally Posted by White Hot Flash
I think the reason you're not going to see any of what you've listed fixed is because they're less "issues" and more "annoyances."
-
Quote:I find it insulting to my intelligence, personally. "Like us on FaceBook so we benefit, but we'll give you a prize for it!" I don't like FaceBook. I don't like advertisements. I don't like being bribed into partaking in either. The only reason the Wisp "incentive" aura for the new PlayNC Launcher didn't piss me off nearly as much is simply because the Launcher had to happen anyway. It's an update to the game's core functions, and getting as many people using it BEFORE the old shoddy updater was deprecated specifically so that those having technical issues could have those sorted while they could still play was essential. It's a promotion to help make the game better.Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
Someone brought up the facepalm emote upstream, which is a good illustration of this conundrum. I know people who are so anti-Facebook that they would prefer to do without the emote than click a "Like" button (and do the attendant facebook account creation) in order to get it. I know many more people who would say "what's the big deal? gimme my emote" and click it without thinking twice. I might expect those anti-FB people to live without a /em facepalm but I'd be raising an eyebrow if any of them quit playing City of Heroes over that being the only possible way to get a facepalm emote.
The only time I'd quit the game over something like this is if I felt the development team were shifting focus to deliver the bulk of the new cool stuff through a method I don't like, which is where the biggest rub hit me with the Incarnate system. Luckily, as long as people like David Nakayama and Tunnel Rat keep communicating with the community, I'm not worried about that particular eventuality. -
Quote:As opposed to what? Neuronopolis?Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
I mean, the guy who runs it's not called Neutron.
-
Quote:I'm obviously partial towards my own designs, so take this for what it's worth, but I think my head works a tad better for the old guyOriginally Posted by Serpine
Here is a cranium comparison.
It makes him look slightly less old and quite a bit less evil. I'm not sure if the "old-lite" works for your design specifications, but I like it, at least.
I like it! He's distinctive enough so you he's know he's not just another suit. Definitely an improvement.Quote:Originally Posted by Serpine
-
Quote:That, really, is what the whole debate comes down to, and indeed has always come down to - the notion that because this is not a PvP game, power level balance doesn't matter. And it does. We here in City of Heroes may be a bit more sensitive about it than most, what with the debacle around Inventions and how the game should and shouldn't be rebalanced around them. More broadly, "selling power" shifts the status quo, as those who buy power can do so much more, and the status quo will always follow those who pay more. Shift it far enough in that direction and you make the situation for those who DON'T pay hopeless. This, in turn, defeats the point of going with a F2P model as you just end up with a game that people have to purchase and/or subscribe to in order to play anyway. And if that's what you'll be going for, why not just make it a traditional subscription-based MMO?Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Actually, the problem here is that the notion of an "advantage" is vague. Let me be precise. The reason why you should be cautious about selling "power" is specifically because most MMOs are built with a design principle of game balance: balance between the power levels of players and other players, and balance between the power levels of players and the content. If you're going to factor these metrics into the design of your game, then selling power that can directly affect these metrics is, essentially, selling the ability to affect those design metrics to players. Its, in effect, selling your design soul.
I really don't want to speak about the dreck of "free" to play MMOs out there like 9Dragons, Divine Souls, World of Tanks and all the other veritable scams which present a shoddy game that constantly tries to reach into your pocket. Just not worth the ulcers it'll give me. But let's look at what we're looking at anyway - City of Heroes. City of Heroes is not going to become quite a textbook case of a "free" to play game. It's still a subscription game, we're still paying $15 a month, but it opens up more options. That should be good, of course, but it comes with a very serious pitfall: You do NOT want to make your existing, paying, loyal customers into second-rate citizens. The WORST thing you could do is tell current subscribers: "Well, you'll become VIPs, but we're instituting SUPER VIP players who pay more and get to ride you around as mounts." In this particular case of City of Heroes, I believe objective one should be to not make the game worse or more unfair towards existing players, and that's not as obvious as it sounds.
---
On a slightly different topic, I spoke with a friend of mine a couple of days ago, and uncharacteristically defended the F2P model to him. My main argument then was the same as it is now - that F2P shouldn't have to rely on grinds so much. With a subscription-based game, the biggest thing the game wants to make you do is play as long as possible. For this, developers employ sometimes very malicious time sinks so that you don't get through their game too fast and cut your subscription. One need look no further than the time singularity that is the Incarnate system for a clear example of what a time sink looks like.
But F2P games don't really care how long you play, or shouldn't, at the very least. What they care about is how much you are willing to spend, preferably in quick succession. What this means, at least to me, is that F2P games should end up being less focused on bogging players down into a grind and more focused on enthralling the player and getting him into a mood to buy. Where classic MMOs have traditionally treated us with tough love, F2P MMOs should end up pampering us, as they don't have our running subscription, but must instead continually coerce us to keep pressing that "Buy now!" button over and over again. It should mean games will become less punishing. Unless...
Unless, that it, the developers of these games choose to coerce people into buying from their stores not by entertaining them into buying but bullying them into buying, instead. I refer you back to 9Dragons as an example: That game is one huge, boring grind that you can chip at until your hair turns grey (if it hasn't already) and not get anywhere. Rather than the game presenting less grind to pamper people, it presents even MORE grind to just about strongarm people into buying experience boosting books so that they can get anything at all out of the game. 9Dragons also sells power in the form of premium weapons, premium temp buffs and so forth. And really, I have to ask - why make a "free" to play game if you're going to pancake over your free players and present them with a shoddy game they have to pay to play anyway? Why have a "free" option if it's not in the slightest viable?
---
I believe the Extra Credit video comes down to the ideal that happy players are more likely to pay to play a game than strongarmed ones. It may be idealistic, but it's an ideal I strongly believe in. I am not a believer in tough love. I am a demanding customer. If I pay for a service, I demand not just a satisfying service but also polite conduct from the staff. I am not paying for a privilege, I am paying for entertainment. I expect to be entertained first and foremost. I expect my enjoyment of the service to be the business' top priority, because if I enjoy myself, I'm going to keep coming back. If I don't enjoy myself but the business tries to swindle me into coming back anyway, I find this as an insult to my intelligence and, corny as it may sound, to my honour and I don't come back. Ever.
Really, it's a question of how best to convert Free players into Premium players. It's the old "sugar vs. vinegar" argument - do you convert them by presenting them with a parsnip game but rubbing it in their faces that they can uncarrot the game if they pay, or do you present them with a decent, fun experience but show them how they can make it that much better if they do pay? Do you, in essence, convert Free players to Premium by making them happy or unhappy?
Now, Arcana, I know you've spoken on the subject before, and I got the impression you treat Free players with disdain. "Free players are not customers," as it were. I personally simply disagree with this. I personally find that happy players are much more likely to pay for a game they already enjoy than unhappy players are likely to pay for a game they don't like so that they can make it tolerable. That's why I stand by what Extra Credit are saying, idealistic as it may be - because what they are saying is that Free players deserve to have fun, too. And this, really, is what I feel this whole thing comes down to:
Make Free players happy and they will pay you back.