Samuel_Tow

Ninja Run is an inherent power, so I have no reason to believe Beast Run will be different.

Aaah! Yeah, that makes sense, and that's what I was going for I don't have my reference pics on this PC, and Google seems determined to not show me any decent ones, but I was shooting for a sort of tribal/native cowgirl sort of in the Tauren style. Upon reflection, Sword/Shield was not a good call for that one.

This is something I want to make a point of. We've gotten a lot of Costume Packs over the years, and in a lot of cases they just have one or two pieces that are better than the equivalents we already had, like a better gas mask, or better rubber gloves. For the most part, I can see a few pieces I want to swap in on my existing characters, and that's about it.

The animal pack is SO much more than this! I literally CANNOT use any of the new pieces on any of my existing characters because the concepts these pieces permit are so new and unprecedented that I honestly just don't have any even attempted. Because I COULDN'T attempt any of them before, for lack of options. In fact, my Cow Girl is a design I started and abandoned because we lacked the pieces and her costume sucked.

More packs like this one, please! More packs that open up more options, instead of adding redundant pieces to old options!

---

Incidentally, is it too late to ask for furry hooves? The ones we have right now can only ever be skin, and that REALLY sucks for bovine characters.

There's nothing wrong with difficult content. What I take issue with is when people pretend that difficult content isn't difficult and that people who can't seem to beat it are somehow stupid or inferior. Hence, "lrn2ply" and "rtfm."

I dislike the Statesman and Recluse TFs, as well as the Tin Mage and Apex TFs, because they are difficult. When I state my reason for not doing them, however, I'm usually told that they're not difficult at all and I'm just not trying hard enough. I tend to then tell people to go to hell.

*edit*
And, thanks, but I'm not sure I want American police where I live.

No, due to your troll is why "fan bois" will come in here and rip you a new one.

So, essentially, your argument boils down to "You go to hell, I want what I want." So how about no?

Making origins count is as pointless as making costume items count. One could make the argument that armour pieces should grant some measure of resistance because they're armour while Tights With Skin should add some measure of defence because they're lighter, and it would be logical. It would also be just as terrible.

The problem with the multiple selves idea is that it lacks any means defined means for the selves to attack. In comics and cartoons, a character who can create copies of himself, such as Billy Numerous from the Teen Titans, will usually just create thousands of copies and swarm his enemies with sheer numbers. Masterminds are limited to six henchmen in three tiers, which means those henchmen HAVE to have some sort of powers of their own.

Powersets in City of Heroes tend to be defined by what they do. Assault Rifle shoots an assault rifle, Energy Melee hits things in melee with energy and so forth. A multiple selves Mastermind does... What, exactly? Yes, he summons henchmen just like every other Mastermind, but they do what to hurt the enemy? Punch and kick like unpowered individuals? Shoot energy and fire like Phantom Army? Use guns? There are far too many possibilities for a set this open to interpretation.

Now, if you're suggesting we get customization options where you can replace, say, Soldiers minions with copies of yourself, that I could get behind.

Just imagine if we'd gotten bears instead of eagles. Then we'd have 48 lions and tigers and bears... Oh, my!

"Anything substantial" is the key word here, I think, and that's what bugs me in all those other games. Sure, you CAN do stuff on your own in most MMOs, but you're really not supposed to and there really isn't anything meaningful to do. If you want to do something exciting, heroic and otherwise big, you have to do it with other people. The implication this leaves me with is that our characters suck and are incapable of doing anything meaningful by themselves.

It does, actually, and I'm quite surprised to hear this. I'll reserve judgement until I20 rolls out, but if they ARE allowing people to make a Notice of the Well from Shards... That will make me dead wrong. I'd still like to see it in the game before I comment on it, however.

Thank you Though I'm not sure what Minozan means.

I'll definitely be making this one on Live come the animal pack, which means I'll probably have to sacrifice Attack. Which is all the same, since he can't be played anyway. I have NO idea what to make this one, however. Sword/Shield was just for the screenshot. I have a Sword/Shield Scrapper already. Maybe if Brutes ever got Broadsword...

You forgot to add "lrn2ply."

The notion that any self-aware entity will be aware of certain self-evident, inalienable rights that every other living being has is, and has always been, a fallacy. We as humans enjoy making rules of morality and ethics in the way we treat others because, instinctively, we know that "it could be us." You don't bash your neighbour over the head and take his stuff, because you don't want your neighbour to bash you over the head and take your stuff. You don't kill because you don't want to be kill. We like to think that if we don't do bad things, we step into an unspoken agreement with other people to not do bad stuff, either. Human society has built its entire mentality on that simple belief, to the point where we actually experience happiness and joy from holding to it.

And while that would be an idea society, nature is subject to no such laws, rules and regulations, nor are indeed other people. We can choose to ostracise them, incarcerate them or outright kill them for disregarding those rules, but we do so because they are a threat to us. We do so because they do "the unthinkable," and it's unthinkable because it's so horrible and unpleasant we don't want to think about it, not because it's impossible. In fact, horror movies, "shocumentaries" and even a lot of dramas rely on the unthinkable to shift us from our comfort zone where can pretend the world is fair and just.

One is only "aware" when one realises these are not rules of unquestionable righteousness and holiness, but are instead rules of survival and cofort, and that we apply those rules mostly to ourselves. Americans like to beat their chest and talk about "freedom" with the same connotation as food, water and shelter, and it always makes me laugh, because "freedom" as it is mostly used is nothing more than a pretty slogan. If I had to choose, I would personally pick the safety to not be killed if I happen to go out after dark, not running the risk of starving or losing my home if I happen to get fired and not worrying about dying from the common cold over "freedom."

---

All of that said, I don't actually dislike how Praetoria is built, in terms of the concept of the world. Emperor Cole does indeed seem to be the only one who genuinely cares about doing the right thing, even if his view of what the right thing is may be quite skewed. In everything he does, you can tell he's trying to be the good guy, but has generally lost all faith in the actual people, and as such treats them like cattle, not like people. Most of his staff, on the other hand... Ugh! When they're not psychotic or completely ruthless, they're burdened by so much baggage. White may be an OK guy normally, but he has so much baggage about proving himself and being the big guy and all that stuff in his past... When you get down to it, the guy's probably as messed-up as Tillman. And, of course, Marchand is "the only sane man" in the whole operation, which brings another level of complexity.

The resistance, on the other hand, seems to be a two-faced entity. On the one hand, you have the ideology of freedom, where one can think, say and express what he wants without fear of reprisals, and where people are not herded like cattle. On the other hand, you have the reality of the fight, and many of the people who fight it, which is anarchy, murder, destruction, disruption and otherwise the horrors of war, to the point where one has to ask if it's worth it to destroy society for the slim hope of rebuilding it from scratch into something better. After all, that's what Cole did once, and this is what it turned out as. And where Marchand is the good guy among the slime for the Loyalists, for the Resistance Scott is the worst of the worst, quite likely more of a problem than a help.

Both factions in Praetoria are drawn with both good and bad qualities, and enough internal contradictions, disagreements and factions so as to be able to make a case both for and against both factions. That's GOOD, but if I just so happen to make a case AGAINST both factions, then what?

That's more or less what I had in mind, yes. I say melee and not ranged because I want to force this character to take an active role, not stand behind his pets and shoot at range. I also want to rob a melee/support character of his actual Support powerset, meaning that he'll have to be in there, mixing it up, or otherwise play on one powerset alone.

As for pets, the last time I suggested this, I envisioned mostly buffer pets, or at least pets on the order of Assault Bots, who do provide firepower, but mostly provide support. That way, the "Leader" will be the one doing the grunt work, but his pets will be with him to support him. The reverse of a Mastermind, as well.

---

One thing we have to remember with these new ATs is that it's not just how WE envision the AT would be played based on how WE want to play it, as much as how the average player will try to break it and leverage some extra advantage. With a melee/summon AT, we'd ideally want the character to be in the melee, fighting, but players may want to let the henchmen fight and so avoid personal risk. Therefore, the AT must be designed to encourage people to fight, not just give them the opportunity to.

This is also true with assault/defence characters. We want to find a way to encourage people to fight both at range and in melee, and not fight like Scrappers or Blaster. That is to say, we don't want the character to just melee all the time and fire ranged attacks at point-blank range, but we also don't want the character constantly kiting and ignoring ranged attacks. If I had to redesign my old system which didn't work, I'd use the Fiery Embrace mechaninc, which is to say:

Have a power which gives an added damage component to ranged attacks and nothing to melee attacks. The more you use ranged attacks, the more that added damage component to ranged attacks drops and the more of an added damage component melee attacks get. And as you use melee attacks, that balance shifts back to ranged attacks. The idea was for damage to see-saw from ranged to melee to ranged to melee so as to encourage players to dive in for a scrap, pull back for a strafe, then dive back in. I'm not sure if that's possible.

As ridiculous as that sounds, that's more or less the vibe I'm getting from it. So much for the Incarnate system.

Not in their language. Tech characters get extra dialogue options. They don't amount to anything, but then that's kind of the point.

You should avoid opening up ethical debates.

If I free the Seers, innocent civilians will die. If I don't free the Seers, they will die or, worse still, live a never-ending nightmare of psychological torture and torment. Are they not innocent, too? Because Seers didn't choose to be in the programme. They were taken, enslaved and essentially turned into nothing better than human batteries for a fortune-teller machine. The machine overmind from the Matrix would be proud.

To quote the Prince of Egypt: "No kingdom should be made on the backs of slaves." Any society which seeks to protect some by sacrificing others against their will is inherently hypocritical, because this infers people want to protect THEMSELVES, but have no qualms about condemning their neighbour to do so.

The story with the Seers is essentially a retread of Minority Report, and follows pretty much that movie's morality of good and evil. And I have no problem accepting that, as I agreed with that movie.

The final resistance choice is only extreme because I'm not given a choice. The Resistance have made their mind up, and the only way I can choose different is to join the Loyalists. This is not the right way to make the choice, because all it does is make me skip the final Morality mission and speak with Steven Sheridan directly. This WOULD be a good place to hold true to my own morality as separate from the Resistance, but the only morality separate from the Resistance is that of the Loyalists, and I don't share the Loyalists' morality, either.

Going Rogue promised a third option, a grey morality, a middle ground that is neither good nor evil. What it delivered was a binary choice over and over again.

I neglected to talk about them, but I have in the past. Those choices I LOVE, because they are choices which as me what I want to do, not what faction I want to belong to. As a Loyalist, I could choose to kill that suit and no-one will know, and no-one will care. But I will know and I will care, and so it is my choice to make, for my own reasons. I can choose to bring Vanessa DeVore into "Mother's" care, or I can choose to let her go, and in neither case do I actually face consequences or swap alignments. This is a choice I make based on my own morality and my own authority. THESE are the moral choices I want to make.

Ironically, what few moral choices City of Villains has are FAR superior to every Morality Mission Praetoria has to offer. Do you stop Amanda Vines from transmitting, or do you shut her down as Marshal Brass has ordered? It really doesn't matter. You get paid either way, you're not held accountable either way, the world keeps on turning either way. You don't join the Rogue Isles Citizens if you don't destroy the generators, and you don't join Arachnos if you do. This choice is not about pragmatism and choosing the "better" option. It's solely and entirely a choice of morality, and morality which asks YOU to give your OWN justification, rather than feeding you a ready-made one.

Or take Westin Phipps. The entirety of the Miss Francine moral choice is presented to you thusly: "Either capture Miss Francine and see her tortured and broken, or don't." Why? I don't know. The game doesn't know. Why did YOU choose to do what you did? Choices like these make me think. WHY did I do this and not the other thing? Praetoria's morality does not make me think. I want to play through the Resistance arc, so I'll pick the Resistance option. Why did I pick the Resistance option? Well, the pop-up window just told me why I did it. Feh!

Choices without faction swaps are choices where player opinion and RP matters. Faction swaps are just a game mechanic which often overrides narrative strength. Choices like saving your clone from the factory, or killing that Family goon instead of arresting him, or, hell, saving the Rogue PPD before the building burns down, THOSE choices I like, because they're choices for ME.

I don't think "lack of choice" here is the problem. We have choices. It's just that they're all effectively the same choice, and all of them driven by meta-game mechanics, instead of morality. It's not that I don't have choices, it's that I don't have the choices I WANT. And it's not for any practical game limitation that I lack those choices. The developers deliberately designed a binary world that disallows a third option, and they didn't have to.

Years ago, I vouched for a "Nemesis Island" which would be a perfect utopia with a totalitarian regime, Big Brother policing and "thought police," I vouched for that with the idea that we would be the OUTSIDERS to that. During the Secret Wars, when Reed Richards walks into Dr. Doom's perfect utopia, he recognises it for the flawed utopia that it is, but he doesn't immediately join the already-formed resistance, at least he didn't in the 90s Fox Cartoons. That's what I mean.

We are given choices as to who to belong to, when the choice I want is to belong to nobody. City of Heroes does that already. The hero-side does not put you in anybody's thrall. Even the organisation you do join, such as Vanguard, the Midnight Club, Ouroboros and suchforth, really don't infringe on your personal identity. Outside of a few select instances, you don't act as a Mender, a Midnighter or a Vanguard agent. You don't represent those organisations. You freelance for them when you can, and they reward you for it, but they don't demand LOYALTY. As such, even though I don't like joining them, I don't really mind it, because I'm not indelibly associated with them. In fact, my association never really comes up.

For years and years now, the City of Heroes narrative has gotten more and more railroading as it progressed, and I don't like that very much. It used to be that I could make ANY character of ANY personality and that character would fit in the world, however loosely. These days... I just can't bring myself to make a Praetorian unless that Praetorian is politically-minded, because the game forces me to make political choices. A non-politically-minded character would probably insult both parties and look for another way, and the game really SHOULD offer us another way to go through Praetoria without being involved in its politics.

This, really, is the centrepiece problem with the whole world - it is politics-incarnate. If you avoid the politics, then Praetoria becomes pointless, because politics is all it has. And it shouldn't have been made into such a one-trick pony.