Samuel_Tow

Well, Anne Bonnie ought to be a villain since she's a pirate and the real Anne Bonny was a famous female pirate wanted by the law of the land and the sea

Joking aside, this whole idea is terrible, because it's based on a very damaging premise - that heroes and villains are somehow intrinsically different in terms of what they ARE. And they aren't. Asking me to essentially glue Alignment ID cards to the chests of my characters ties my hands so bad it's impossible to tell a good story.

I'll refer to an old truth I keep banding about: A hero is defined not by the clothes he wears or the powers he wields, but by what he does and why he does it. Costumed heroes and costumed villains are the same thing, they're just people with powers. It's what they do with these powers that defines whether one is a hero or a villain. The less of a difference there is between heroes and villains BY MANDATE, the happier I'll be. Sure, the editor is powerful enough that if you want to make YOUR heroes and villains iconically distinct, you very much can. Just don't ask me to make mine distinct against my will.

No, not really. I only recently tried that game when it went free and I haven't heard many quotes out of it, aside from "This feel great, dokta!"

The Prankster and a few others made it a point to shoot down any opinion criticising the game with snide comments, passive-aggressive underhanded insults and other malicious arguments. I'm not surprised to see those reused. I don't people on ignore for disagreeing with me. I put people on ignore when there's no point in discussing anything with them.

The very "question" of this thread is a simple one to answer - some people are bitter about SOME things in the game but still enjoy other things and keep playing for them. Some people, as well, take issue with developer action and, furthermore, apparent developer intent, and do what they can to get this point across. I'm of the opinion that this helps the game in the long run so long as it leads to a discussion and not a flame war. Sometimes you need to exclude a few people to ensure that, but it's a price well worth paying, as experience only serves to prove again and again.

It's only a joke until you realise that some games have systems remarkably similar to that in play. If there's one thing I HATE more than anything else, it's renting virtual property, specifically since I'm ALREADY paying money to rent access to the game itself.

Interestingly, I think I have only a single Stalker out of about half a dozen who's motivated by greed... And she's a hero In her case, I wrote her sort of like a mercenary with a heart of gold, or an unwilling hero of sorts. She's always after the money, but all too often she'll abandon her profits to save people in peril, and then as everyone's celebrating good's triumph over evil, she'll be lamenting about "All that money... Gone..." It's less of a FLAWED hero design since I've never actually had her do evil for greed, but more of a... Cheeky hero, let's say. "Whaaat? He's been dead for 1000 years. He won't miss that solid gold sceptre."

In general, my Stalker heroes tend to be a bit less straightforward than pretty much all my other heroes, as they tend to be motivated by darker desires, even if they're still driven by a pure and honest heart. In addition to my mercenary alien, I have an anthropomorphic cat who has a SERIOUS grudge against mages of all kinds and has essentially pledged her life to killing them whenever they cross the line into evil. She's still a good person and still saves people, but her mission in life is less to save and more to kill. Another is lizard lady in a similar position, having survived horrible genetic experimentation and found herself angry at the world at large. Her story is a constant quest for balance and a way to harness this anger and evil for good.

I honestly don't know why I keep writing Stalkers like this. In a way, my mind defaults to characters who fight ordinary fights, so for one to be skulking around and not attacking openly, there has to be some kind of reason. And since I don't want to admit that this reason is the character's just weaker, I come up with a storyline example of why the character's not interested in picking fights so much as winning them

And, yes, that's the kind of response I wanted. Thank you

I don't recall seeing that mentioned, and I somewhat doubt it could happen for Broadsword at least. When BABs made a lot of the new custom swords, he specifically made their hilts only long enough to accommodate a single hand. Most of those don't even have enough hilt for basic ******* Sword grip (apologies for the censor, but you know what I mean). On top of it all, BABs sense of aesthetics made AAALL of the custom swords far, far too short to ever make sense being wielded two-handed. He was making one-handed swords, after all.

I think the development team did seriously consider simply giving us two-handed animations with the one-handed weapons but found that it was so much work for the art team they may as well have made a new set... Which they chose to do instead

Yeah, I'd definitely want to hear some news about that. I was lucky to have put my Victorian Dress lady on hiatus before the update came, but I'd be might upset if I were still playing her, too.

You know, even though I have you on ignore, I can't help catching glipmses of your posts in other people's quotes, and I keep being reminded of why I put you on ignore to begin with. You and people like you are a big part of the reasons why me and people like me complain so much. So very often we'll be more or less content with the game, but become pissed off when self-righteous wise guys go on a crusade to tell us we don't matter, our opinions are worthless, we're a vocal minority and all the other tripe that got me to never want to hear another thing from about a dozen people.

But I'm not bitter, though. I'm getting what I want and the game is going pretty much exactly where I want it to go NOW, as opposed to before. That makes my staying with it through the worst of the excesses worth it. And if I angered a few people along the way, well, too bad.

The thing, though, is that I'm not really sure Laser Beam Eyes actually fits my concept. At first I wanted to take it because... Hey, godlike powers, why not eye beams? But then I remembered that I specifically wrote this one's concept as focusing most of her power through her cybernetic arm. I can kind of stomach Energy Torrent using a left-handed animation, since it's still a "handed" one, but Laser Beam Eyes... I don't know. I'd have to see Epic customization and swap that animation for the new one here the beams shoot out of the fists if I am to use it.

Hmm... See, I like Superior Conditioning more for the Regeneration bonus than for the endurance buff, to be honest. Considering how little I can slot it, there isn't much more I can ask from the thing.

Interestingly, I've been considering dropping Laser Beam Eyes out of the build because it's... Not really appropriate for this character. In fact, it's no appropriate at all. She should be focusing energy through her big robotic hand, not through her eyes. Yeah, I'll probably have to do a repeat of my kung fu robot and go with Physical Perfection, Superior Conditioning, Energy Torrent and Focused Accuracy. Probably in that order.

Question, in this regard: If I do take Focused Accuracy, does that mean I should slot the four Willpower toggles for Endurance? I currently don't plan to do so, but dropping Laser Beam Eyes will free up four slots and I could conceivably do that.

Hey, that's half the reason I haven't had the heart to complain lately. Titanic Weapons really flipped my view of the game clear upside down, and with the latest proliferation announcements, I'm considering having my Fanboy ID renewed

Of course, but my comment on the general design still stands - the weapon looks big and heavy, which I heartily approve of. This is part of the reason why I keep getting into arguments with people over big weapons. There's this belief that those of us who like big weapons want something absurdly impractically huge, when all I really want is a weapon that LOOKS big and heavy. You've managed to pull that off in both of your designs. I sincerely hope the development team take you up on those, because both of them are amazing

That's not a bad idea, actually, though I tend to use inherents more as a tie-breaker than as a general rule of thumb. Somewhat relevant example: When I rerolled Inna, my once-50-Energy/Energy Blaster, I chose to make her a Brute. That Meant Energy Melee, but Energy/What? Energy/Energy was the obvious choice, though Energy/Will was a good choice, too. I could make a sold conceptual argument for both: Energy Aura as the defensive set of an energy-incarnate being and Willpower as the physical manifestation of the will of a demigod. I eventually went with Willpower because Energy Cloak didn't and doesn't have a No Fade or Pulse option and Inna didn't make sense to be stealthy anyway. This is what I see as a relatively hard choice decided by a relatively insignificant tie-breaker.

Well, that, and I already had an Energy/Energy Brute

Actually, judging by the responses I've seen in this thread so far, I'm pretty sure I'll end up making Xanta a Brute, too. I never really had reason enough to reroll her, both since Brutes didn't have Broadsword and couldn't be heroes, and because I'd already played her quite a ways up as a Scrapper. But then, I made Brutticus, who at the time of writing this is my farthest-progressed Incarnate, and she's a Brute. Brutticus is living proof that Brutes are more than awesome enough, and since I'll be rerolling for Titanic Weapons, I might as well, right?

To be honest, seeing people's interpretations and reinterpretations of the ATs is giving me quite a few new ideas and a much more confident view of what I want the ATs to represent. I don't always agree with every viewpoint, of course, but that's just how it goes. The main thing is I feel we all stand to benefit from sharing ideas like this. Hell, I'm already finding inspiration in odd, forgotten concepts, and I think I'm more or less confident in what I want to make at least a few of my questionable characters.

So, thank you for that, guys

That was a Portal 2 joke, actually. I just thought it was appropriate here

That's not quite what I meant in the original post, though. I never saw Brutes as inherently evil to Scrappers' inherent goodness, so much so that Brutes were mandatorily evil and melee fighters, so when I needed a melee fighter who happened to be evil, there was no choice to make: Brute. This is no longer the case though. For example, if I got a concept for a character who used a sword and had reflexes fast enough to dodge bullets. BS/SR matches this to a T, but from what AT? Scrappers, Brutes and Stalkers will all have both powersets available to them post Freedom, and all three ATs will be able to start on whichever side I elect to make the character. So which one do I pick?

"Whichever you haven't already" was an answer I saw a few times already, but that doesn't really work for me. We aren't getting NEW combos, just old combos in new ATs, which means that rather than make new characters, I may want to reroll old ones in new ATs they couldn't have before. Maybe even new powersets.

Case in point: the Herald of Light. He's the spirit of an ancient Roman soldier trapped inside a decorative medieval suit of armour. While the armour itself isn't very strong, the ghost has the power to repair it as it gets damaged, hence BS/Regen. But BS/Regen WHAT? He's a hero I made back when I1 was still young, so he's a Scrapper. I had no options at the time. But now that I do... Should I reroll him? I'm already considering rerolling him as a TW/Regen Scrapper or a Sword/Shield Brute, but should I? I don't know. I have no good argument to justify the change, nor do I have a good argument to justify NOT changing him. Where's a Stalemate Resolution Associate when you need one?

And there's nothing wrong with that, really. City of Heroes shines the brightest when it brings people of wildly different interests, mentalities and cultures together. That's how a good game should be.

Unfortunately, I find myself much more a storyteller than a player, and I enjoy my characters far, FAR more for what they represent and the stories I am able to tell with them than for the gameplay they give me. Of course, gameplay is important or I wouldn't subscribe to a GAME, but gameplay robbed of story is too hollow for my tastes. Therefore, I cannot start a character without having a concept first.

To confess, I HAVE started a few like this. Most of those are gone and deleted, and the rest of them I'm rerolling now into different sets, different names and different concepts, something concrete for me to remember and care about. That's kind of why the question of what ATs represent is so important at the moment - because very soon, AT will no longer be decided by the side you choose to start on. AT decision will require a much more convincing reasons, and these reasons I do not yet have.

True, true, but that's why I bring up Devil May Cry's Dante. Once upon a time I could never imagine a sword + pistols combo ever working and looking good on any character specifically because I could never imagine the act of switching between weapons being done well. Turns out it doesn't have to be "done" at all. You can have a character who swaps weapons instantly and with no intervening animation, and surprisingly, the resulting game still looks pretty damn good!

I have subsequently played quite a few 2D fighting games which featured characters either manifesting ranged weapons or sometimes even swapping between multiple ranged weapons within the span of a couple of seconds, and I have to say it still looks seamless provided the character doesn't animate putting one weapon away and pulling another out.

Years ago, the draw animation for the Undead Slaying Axe (as it was called at the time) was bugged and would simply not play when in the air. This allowed my constantly flying BS/Regen Scrapper to do half an attack chain with the sword then swipe with the axe in a manner so seamless it looked as though it were inherent in the set. Of course, swapping back to Broadsword caused redraw and somewhat ruined the effect, but this proved - to me at least - that simply removing all weapon redraw would eliminate all issues of redraw interference without introducing any aesthetic problems whatsoever.

It's interesting to note that having a character switch between weapons instantly and already be mid-swing mere frames later, while it sounds bad in writing, actually works really well. I suppose it's fast enough that it fools our brains that a weapon changed really did happen, we just didn't catch it. I suppose it's also that the concept itself is cool enough that the cut corners aren't as noticeable as they would be elsewhere.

Will removal of all draw animations ever happen? I don't know. Prior to the recent massively awesome announcements, I'd have said "No, not with BABs gone." But if Paragon Studios really do intend to make an awesome game that's more than just a cheap money scam like they're promising (and like I'm starting to believe)... Then, yeah, I seriously think it could happen, and not too far away from the present, even. And not just for sword + gun combos, but for the sake of weapon sets across the entire game.

I don't think it's so much a narrow niche that's the problem as the very, very specific design that's the problem. Whenever you start combining weapons and hard-coding them into their own powersets, you start running into problems. You'll get people who don't want an axe and a gun, instead, some who want a mace and a gun, and then there's me, who'd like to see a gun + shield combo. Seriously.

Bundling concepts into monolithic packages is not something I'm a fan of. To be honest, even when it comes to Titanic Weapons, I have my reservations about the set including non-sword weapons, but we'll have to see how that goes. However, when opportunity exists, I want to see powers broken down as much as possible, to the point where players could pick any collection of concepts they desire without inheriting things they don't want with it. See GunFu characters now (like I know you have) and Petless Thugs Masterminds before that. Sometimes you just want the gun but not the other two thirds of a powerset that come with it.

I have nothing against a character who uses a sword and a gun. I just feel the game is able to provide much more choice than JUST that.

Experiences like these are why I keep playing City of Heroes The current BS/Inv version of my own Xanta does this to me pretty much every time I log her in. I'm sure her TW/Inv version will do that to an even greater extent, possible disasters notwithstanding.

So show it! I'd love to see that card. Sounds like pure inspiration in physical form from that description

This is almost exactly the kind of response I wanted. I disagree almost completely, mind you, but that's not the point I'm looking to put some conceptual background to the meta-game ATs, get an idea of what I should see the ATs as and, therefore, where an abstract character concept should go. Such a breakdown of what the ATs would be as actual people is very much appreciated, as would be quoting specific characters and explaining why they're the AT they are.

Still, there are a few points I of disagreement I want to speak on - and this isn't an argument, just points of view. No-one is wrong here, as we're all free to make our own choices.

I've seen Brutes described as some kind of feral monsters or otherwise uncontrollable hotheads many times before, but I've personally never seen them that way, possibly because I never played them that way. Back in the day when Fury drained too fast, I'd simply let it drain, and these days I don't have to do anything at all to build up to 50-60 Fury. As such, I treat most Brutes as pulling their punches.

Most of my Brutes tend to be almost unfairly powerful, so to keep things fair, I tend to write them as usually holding back, either out of pride, a sense of moderation, because they couldn't be arsed or simply because they're used to approaching fights in a casual manner. If the enemy is weak, then they were right and there was no point in trying harder, so why bother? If the enemy is strong, then these weak attacks will be rebuffed and the Brute will gradually take off more and more of the kiddy gloves.

I actually tend to write Brutes more as stoic, reserved and actually pretty calm, since they need time to pick up speed and reach anything even remotely close to their full potential. This is ideal for my flagship villain, who tends to enjoy toying with his enemies and finds it entertaining when they turn out to be stronger than expected, as there's almost always more power that he is holding back, just because it's usually not needed.

Scrappers, by contrast, I see less as skilled and more as "explosive." Unlike Brutes, Scrappers are the sort of calm before the storm type characters. A Scrapper could be sitting in a lazyboy recliner with a cup 'a tea in one hand and today's paper in the other when suddenly *BOOM* Critical Head Splitter! Um... Overreact much?

Where I see Brutes as being slow, heavy and needing to build momentum, I see Scrappers as the reverse - brimming with energy and actively holding it back. If a Brute is a rock that gets dangerous if it rolls downhill, but doesn't do much sitting on flat ground, a Scrapper is a coiled spring on a hair trigger. I guess the main difference I see is that Brutes begin a fight by getting hit and shrugging it off, whereas Scrappers I see starting a fight by landing the first hit and the enemy not living long enough to shrug it off.

Where Stalkers enter into this picture is a bit iffy. I don't really see them as hooded assassins or scouts or outdoorsmen or even as skill-based fighters a lot of the time. I see them more as combat manipulators, less people who squat in bushes and more people who can misdirect and redirect. Like that demon lady I have who uses charms and illusions to distract the enemy just long enough for the ****** in his armour to shine bright as day.

I don't see Stalkers as being too weak to survive in a stand-up fight... I couldn't play them if I did, given how pointless re-hiding is and how bugged Placate has always been. I more see them as fighters who just don't LIKE a stand-up fight. If cornered, my Stalkers would fight like devils, no question there, but if given the choice, they'll blindside the enemy, then mock him as he's limping away before letting him round a corner right into their waiting blade.

I see Stalkers as more of a cat-and-mouse fighter, all told. It's not that they're cruel (not always) so much as combat isn't what they signed up for. Winning is. So if they can win a fight by avoiding combat for the most part, that's all the better. My Stalkers pick easy fights not because they're unable to handle the hard fights, but more because "I love it when things are too easy!" Where a Scrapper or a Brute would pull a Naruto by jumping in front of his enemies and yelling "Fight me!" a Stalker would simply walk around the courtyard, run the guards through and continue on his merry way, all the hard work averted.

---

Again, that's just how I see things, especially in light of the comments I've read in this thread. It's not right or wrong, and it's certainly not better than your way of seeing things. It's just personal preference. And that kind of what I want to see more of - other people's personal preferences. The more I see, the better I can define my own view of things.