Samuel_Tow

That's asuming you didn't "know" Blasters were lagging behind and terrible to play, especially solo. I have a hard time imagining how anyone who played a Blaster solo before the Defiance changes would not have noticed that, as even Blaster proponents at the time acknowledged this, but argued it was a benefit because Blasters were "hard mode."

If the argument here is "we thought Blasters were great but they actually sucked, so that's proof we don't know," then that's a very poor example because it takes what was blatantly obvious to anyone who actually played, and to a fair few who just observed.

Given that Praetoria City lacks a difficulty changing person of any fashion...

You then went on to say "that's false" in the very next paragraph, which was also in the quote in my post.

What I said and what you're saying have nothing to do with each other. I think I finally see what you mean, but it is not in the slightest like what I'm saying, so you really shouldn't be using it as a counter-argument, because both statements can be true at the same time. I'll humour you and base off your argument.

Let's agree with your argument that non-exclusive choices don't have to be roughly equal. That much I agree with. If you give people 9 bad choices and one REALLY good choice, all of them for the same opportunity cost, can you really call that a choice? Because I can't. Good game design, and I'm going to insist on this, dictates that if game mechanics choices exist, they should be meaningful. If game mechanics choices are "no-brainers," then they should no be choices. Why? Because they point of a choice is to give options, but when only one or two options out of a dozen are good, you don't HAVE options. All that's left is a sucker trap the only practical effect of which is to introduce the danger of NOT making the right choice and thus harming your own gaming experience.

If Stamina is a no-brainer, then it should not be a choice. You may not see it as a no-brainer, I certainly don't see it as a no-brainer, but last time I saw a person without Stamina who wasn't me isn't even on my calendar any more. This is where we get lost in game design mechanics vs game reality.

Fact: Most people feel that Stamina is necessary. Fact: Most people take Stamina. Fact: Most people feel that there is no alternative. This in itself suggests that something about how the game's basic design interacts with Stamina is broken. If damn near your entire playerbase is always taking a single power every time, then something is wrong. How that is to be "fixed" is up in the air, but the basic approaches that I can see consist of reducing the power of Stamina, increasing the opportunity cost of Stamina, reducing the need for Stamina or introducing alternatives to Stamina.

A choice is not a choice if the system makes it for you, and a choice that's not a choice is broken.

That's kind of what I've always said. I don't expect the game to be 100% non-stop action like I were playing a spastic Brute on speed dial, but I also don't believe that three minutes of dead air is acceptable as the other "extreme." Rest is already a form of downtime, and mind you, a severe, irritating form of downtime if you ask people, from what I've gathered. So what I want is not the removal of all downtime in any way, shape or form, but merely its reduction into something that's more controllable and less about empty waiting.

Just as an idle point of fact: 9Dragons has exactly that - instantly-recharging Rest. They don't call it Rest, they call it Meditation, but that's what it is. You sit down, and your health and energy recover at a very fast rate. The catch in 9Dragons is you can't actually STOP resting until you are fully-recovered, and being attacked while meditating causes you "internal wounds." It also begins to take a somewhat long-ish amount of time as your health and energy increase, though in classic MMO fashion, it can be replaced with better, faster forms of meditation.

9Dragons sucks, but it does not suck because of meditation. In fact, meditation is one of the few GOOD things about the game. For me, it opened up the ability to do team content solo. I was ordered to kill stuff and look for drops, but the stuff in question was strong and came in large groups. So I'd kill one, high-tail it and be almost dead and exhausted. I'd meditate, recover fully, go kill a few more, run away again and meditate some more. Were I forced to walk away from the computer after every fight, I would not have lasted a day in 9Dragons. Instead, I lasted about a week, which is still more than I've lasted in most other MMOs, namely Champions Online.

And 9Dragons is DEFINITELY designed around resource management. Believe me, it is. It has those "experience boost" books, it has various forms of buffing food and potions, it has limited-use medicines which heal wounds of all kinds and it has a HEAVY reliance on money. Even a game that's about as classic Korean resource-driven grindfest as they come without having Lineage in its name STILL offered an instantly-recharging form of rest that was built into the engine. And even at the worst of times, I've never seen meditation take more than 10-20 seconds from zero to full.

Actually, I think that may not necessarily be the case. An account gets "tagged" with a global name the first time it logs in, that much is true, but this also happens after changes cause global names to be reset. My global is, and has always been, @Samuel Tow, but a few times I'll log in, say something in a global channel and it'll come out as, say, @Emillia Heart, because that's who I'd been playing at the time, only to later be told that globals were reset and global rename tokens issued.

I don't know what causes globals to be reset like this, but they have been reset no less than three times that I can distinctly remember, and probably more times that I've forgotten about. As I understand the process, accounts simply lose their globals altogether and then have to be re-issued a brand new one the first time they log in, which by default is the name of the character they logged in as. Chances are, if a name is not tied to a global, that this player HAS logged in since 2005, but has not logged in since the last global name shenanigans, which was fairly recent if I remember correctly.

Off-topic a bit, but I remember mentioning your name some time recently, in the "Hey, whatever happened to Rooftop Raider?" sense. I still remember that video you showed me of Combat Jumping + Hurdle + Super Speed

Especially if you don't like cake or icing to begin with.

To be fare, you're not replacing a random villain with a different random villain. You're replacing a pre-fab villain, and indeed one from a VERY small pool of pre-fab villains, with a truly random villain that you haven't seen before. I haven't done many Safeguards, but I'm kind of tired of facing against Holo Man when I do Mayhem missions.

Opportunity cost notwithstanding, I can't really disagree with this idea.

Arcana, I mean no offence here, but sometimes I have to wonder if you don't get so lost in game design logistics that you forget why we're all here in the first place - to have fun and unwind. Deliberately introducing "balance by annoyance" is very, very counter to that. I still stand by what I've always said: a game should not inspire boredom no matter how it is designed, especially intentionally. No mechanic should ever be instituted with the sole purpose of making me bored, even if it's intended to work as disincentive.

Furthermore, you keep hinging on how the game "was" designed, once upon a time. With both Rick Dakan and Jack Emmert gone from the picture, we really shouldn't be holding those original design intents up as gospel. That is to say, holding up regeneration and saying that one of its big advantages is low downtime is disingenuous. You act as if higher regeneration and higher recovery are only ever useful as pick-me-ups after a hard fight. Higher recovery doesn't just mean you recovery faster, it means you can burn more via toggles and still maintain close to the same level of recovery. This means more toggles, this means heavier toggles, this means more interesting toggles. Like Tough and Weave, like Tactics, Assault and Manoeuvres, like Focused Accuracy and so forth. Higher regeneration means more survivability and more survivability means the ability to survive tougher fights, especially at certain levels of incoming damage.

I know you know these things, which is why I'm surprised you would trivialise them in order to extol Regen's virtues as a low downtime set. You act as if Regeneration is somehow inferior to other sets, and so has lower downtime to compensate. That is not true in the slightest. I don't know where it stands on your numerical comparison, but I would bet my metal-tipped tail that it is NOT squarely at the bottom. In fact, I do not believe Regeneration doesn't have anything to "offset" by offering lower downtime, too.

And even if we assumed that were the case, where does Willpower feature into this? Willpower is a set that offers lower downtime, but also has some of the better survivability mechanics out there.

And all of this is based on what I can only describe as a flawed premise - that downtime is a useful balancing tool. It's not. Downtime is anti-joy. Downtime is the one aspect of any game which is irredeemable in any way, shape or form. Any time a game tells you "you cannot play me for this amount of time" is bad. This is balance by annoyance of the highest order. It's like saying "Hey, this character is really good, but playing it causes my PC to randomly reboot as a balancing mechanic." Or, to be more realistic, what was that game where a fighter class was designed to be very strong, but receive less experience from kills, causing people to fall behind their friends when teaming?

And, to be honest, I don't see how you can make the argument that the game isn't "designed" to allow for little downtime. What does lowering or removing downtime break, exactly? I want to know. Does it make the game too easy somehow? How is it doing that when Rest does nothing to lower power recharge? If I rest, I get my hit points and endurance back, but Dull Pain doesn't recharge any faster, Unstoppable doesn't recharge any faster, Build Up doesn't recharge any faster. So what, exactly, does lowering downtime, and still at the cost of time plus vulnerability, really break? Are we seriously going to say that forcing people to sit on their hands, watch TV, Alt-Tab to forums and suchforth is a legitimate and positive part of game balance? Because I don't buy it.

Considering how badly the entire engine handles verticality, I have no reason to suspect it would respect verticality for AoEs. furthermore, having actually played with PBAoEs of various ranges as used from the air to try and catch enemies with them while staying out of melee, I'm all but convinced that this is how it works.

Mathematically, a pill shape isn't that hard to define depending on what kind of coordinates you're using. Spherical coordinates would make such a definition needlessly difficult, true, but cylindrical coordinates would make it actually very easy. Considering that the game appears to define 3D space as an extrapolation of 2D space, I have much reason to believe that's exactly what it uses, in effect if not in definition.

Cylindrical coordinates can reduce a pill shape to a 2D elliptical shape, or actually a half-ellipse, which is then rotated around the centre vertical. Or it would be if that were expressed analytically. As far as I can tell, 3D range is calculated by measuring the distance of an object's projection on the 2d horizontal plane that the character is on, then measuring the distance that object is above or below the plane and "increasing" its distance by some formula. I doubt it's even an ellipse, to be honest. It's probably something much simpler, like a parabola, if it's not even linear.

I've no doubt that the pill shape of Dispersion Bubble and Force Bubble aren't EXACT descriptions of their respective powers' areas of effect, nor do I feel that they are actually defined to follow that shape. However, they are a good example of how AoE range doesn't extend as far vertically as it does horizontally. Because City of Heroes is, for the most part, a planar game, we rarely experience this, but it's there, and it's an important fact to keep in mind. Especially if you, like me, try to catch things with Combustion while staying above the 7 foot melee range of the things you're trying to hit. You'll hit a LOT fewer things than it looks like you should with a 15' AoE.

Yes, but again, this runs into the same problem - I have more to DO, but do I have more to ACHIEVE? I view the de-facto end game as my "retirement" time, and let me explain this before you get angry. Retirement, as I define it, is the time when, ideally, you no longer have to work and strive for achievements, and you can instead lean back and enjoy everything that you have earned thus far. I view end game in the same manner. The end of the game, i.e. level 50, is the time when I can stop trying to achieve things, and I can instead take my powers as amassed and use them for more content.

This comes into play with how level 50 content should be designed. Do we simply give people more tasks to partake in, such as new stories and new arcs, or do we give people more loot to grind for? Personally, I would prefer more arcs with no new rewards, because it means I don't have to worry about even more progress and I can rest on my laurels. I highly suspect that the Incarnate system will yank me out of that comfort zone. I just hope it's less of a horrible grind than what I saw in Beta.

That's interesting coming from you, Arcana, because you're putting words in my mouth. I never said the problem was that people get too little recovery and the obvious solution was to increase recovery. What I said was that there is a problem with Stamina being too popular and "a solution" was necessary. I never specified what that solution would be, as I don't know what that solution would be. My only objective in looking for a solution to this in the first place is to see fewer people take Stamina and fewer people feel that they must. HOW that is achieved is irrelevant to the fact that it SHOULD be achieved.

I have absolutely no idea what this paragraph even says. It seems to suggest that, with the right application of spin, Stamina's popularity can be presented as being normal and acceptable. However, when I look at a power that everyone feels they should take, this in itself is evidence that something must be done. Higher recovery, lower bonus for Stamina, better alternatives, stronger endurance reduction enhancements, faster-recharging Rest, just SOMETHING.

You can't have everyone always taking the same power at the same level on every character and call this working as intended. If the obvious design consequences is that there is no choice perceived, then there should be no choice presented, because that's what it results in anyway.

Actually, I do laugh. Every time I pass by the entrance of one of those PvP zones, I laugh and laugh and laugh. It's pretty funny, actually.

*edit*
This seems to confirm my suspicions that you really HAVE been gone for quite some time. Yes, once upon a time, people were calling for a nerf to Stalkers. That was, what? Two, three years ago? We are long since past calling for a nerf to them, and have in fact seen a BUFF to Stalkers since then. Some of us, myself among them, feel that they could use a little more. And, yes, I do have several Stalkers, so I'm not just making this up.

Well, there are two points to make here.

On a more personal note, I've always preferred games which can be beaten (or "rerolled" as we used to call it with arcades) and started over for another pass at the exact same experience. I've easily put more playtime into Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time than all the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games put together, despite Sands of Time having only about four hours' worth of playtime, all told. Truth be told, if it came to that, I'd probably be rerolling my 50s as the exact same characters and running them from level 1 to 50 all over again. The reason I don't do that is because I have OTHER characters I could be doing this with. But make no mistake - if I didn't, I would.

On a less personal note, I prefer games that give you more content, but without necessarily giving you more PROGRESSION. If I had more to do with my 50s, I'd play them more. The first time the War Zone launched, I took both Samuel Tow and Ezikiel Bane, my flagship 50 hero and villain respectively, though the entire storyline from beginning to end, pretty much one right after the other. Come the Incarnate system, and provided it consists of more than grinding missions, I'll probably start by doing that all over again. Designing the game in this way satisfies me in that there is still a point at which my character is "done" AND it provides something for people who enjoy their 50s to do. Granted, it doesn't give anything to those who want endless progress, but there really is no way to both have endless progress and a distinct end to that progress, so you can't really please both sides here.

On that note, I don't really have a problem with playing a game that has no progress. The aforementioned Sands of Time has no progress. At all. The Prince has the same abilities from beginning to end, and outside of a few cosmetic changes here and there, nothing changes. I have no problem playing that nevertheless. In much the same way, I have no problem with playing City of Heroes even when there is no level, Inventions or Incarnate progress to be made, provided it doesn't FEEL like there is progress and I just can't have any. I need to have a point after which I can stop feeling like I'm weak now, and if only I were stronger, this would be so much easier. I want to feel that, OK I have everything I need. Now it's time to go use it. Isn't that why I was earning it for the past 50 levels? Endless progression never gives me the feeling that I've done my work and now I can enjoy the spoils, because the "spoils" are merely tools towards even more work.

This reminds me of that classic quote from Terminator 2:

John Connor: We've got company.
Miles Dyson: Police?
Sarah Connor: How many?
John Connor: Uh, all of them, I think.

I'm sorry that I won't be very productive, but I can't be the only one who feels this sounds like it came out of a hip-hop song, can I?

I really don't know what to say to that.

But your argument as I read it was that an Assault/Defence AT would do less damage than a Blaster and have less survivability than a Scrapper, so why bother getting that if you could get either of those. To which I respond with the question of why get a Dominator when a Blaster deals more damage and a Defender supports better. If a Dominator, who is the mid-point between Defender and Blaster, can still be useful as a generalist character, then why couldn't a Support/Defence AT, which is the mid-point between a Blaster and Scrapper, get the same treatment?

I think you mean "Brutes" in the first sentence. And my beef is between Blasters and Scrappers. Scrappers can't really tank (I've tried, not on a build that isn't specially designed for that) well enough to play the tank, and they deal markedly less damage than Blasters. They have self-protection capabilities, but how do their self-protection capabilities help a team in such a way that more damage wouldn't?

And keep in mind that if you manage to answer that question, you're constructing an argument FOR Assault/Defence ATs.

Which is why I specified that you wouldn't be able to convince ME. I never implied that you were TRYING to do so, but since I'm also reading the thread and considering the arguments, I feel well within my right to evaluate them, as well. And I find them unconvincing. If it bothers you, I can refrain from doing this to you in the future. Just say the word.

Have you any concept how much WORSE that is than Shield Defence? Shield Defence only really has two powers that go down the drain because of "team support," and even then they have some marginal excuse of a benefit to the Shield Defence user to justify taking them. Thermal Shield, by contrast, has no use to the character who takes it because it cannot affect the character who takes it. It is a pure team support power, and not something I'm interested in seeing in any character I ever make. That's not an argument to proclaim team-only powers as useless and worthless, but more so to proclaim them useless and worthless WHEN SOLO.

The entire argument for "an Ironman" is to do what a Blaster cannot - feel confident in one's own powers when alone and without a team. A Scrapper can. A Brute can. A Mastermind REALLY can. A Blaster can't, not really. A Blaster who plays with the bravery of a Scrapper dies. The only successful Blasters are those who play cautiously, which is not to say slowly or avoiding risks, but more to say only ever taking calculated risks. With a Scrapper, I can dive into a spawn and trust that either I will be able to succeed, or I will have enough time between when I realise I won't to when I am doomed to actually do something about it. The line between "doing great" and "dead meat" with a Blaster is far, far, FAR too fine for that.

Why explain all this? Well, because this centres around the solo game most of all. I've said it many times before - when you are on a team, you have other people to cover for your weaknesses. On a decent team, a Blaster's fragility is largely mitigated, allowing the Blaster to, in essence, play like a Scrapper, with the same kind of confidence and the same kind of aggression. One does not need a defence set to defend himself when on a team, because more often than not, the team will do that for him. One does, however, need a defence set to defend himself when solo, or resort to cautious, "challenging" play.

The point of an Assault/Defence set, at least how I'd design it, is to provide a unique experience of fighting at all ranges via inherent powers designed to alternate between benefiting each. Regardless of what they're intended to do, combat ATs fall in two categories - those who have enough protection to stand and fight in melee and those who don't, going into melee only to deliver quick attacks and then backing up to range once more. What my ultimate dream for an Assault/Defence AT is, is for that AT to be rewarded for sometimes fighting from range and sometimes fighting in melee, but never encouraged to just pick one at the expense of the other.

If you only knew how many characters I've made on that premise alone...

And how do Kheldians figure into your calculation there? Kheldians are singularly worse at everything they do as compared to the specialists who do that. They deal less damage than Blasters (even in Nova form, yes), they are worse at tanking than Tankers, they have some control but pale in comparison to what a decent Blaster can do, let alone a Controller... What is it that a Kheldian brings to the team that a specialist in that field couldn't bring to the team in higher quantities?

In fact, why even bring Corruptors to a team right now when you can take Defenders or Blasters, instead? If you need damage, grab a Blaster. It blasts harder than a Corruptor, and it has more health, to boot. If you need support, grab a Defender. It has higher support modifiers. Yet people keep playing Corruptors and keep getting invited to teams, because corruptors can do both.

I don't see why an AT that provides less damage than a Blaster but can protect itself is immediately cast aside as worthless. After all, that's very much what Blasters are, to say nothing of Brutes.

People want an AT that can use guns and/or have blasts, but also have the capability of protecting itself passively without being designed as a glass cannon. Considering Positron's "give the players what they want within reason," I would assume that it is therefore the developers' job to figure out how such a thing would work mechanically and how it would fit into the game once it has been established that people do indeed want this. And considering this has been suggested for as long as I've been in this game, I dare say that much has been proven. We certainly had a far less convincing argument for powerset proliferation and power customization, basically coming down to "I want this," so I dare say precedent has been set.

It would be good if players could sit down and design a perfect AT with sets and powers ready to receive artwork, if they aren't ports of existing powersets anyway, which Castle could look at, go "I like!" and just import our numbers into his spreadsheets. It would be ideal. But even when we lack such convincing numerical analysis, this should not be taken as evidence that such a thing should NOT be made.

We, as players, should only ever be expected to know what we want, NOT how to make it happen.

*edit*
Is it really worth splitting hairs on whether the primary is "ranged" or "assault" when a mix of melee and ranged combat has always been the theme here? And beyond that, I don't believe you'll ever be able to convince me, specifically, that a Ranged/Defence AT should include support in any fashion. Even if that's numerically balanced, it's not something I want. Given how Shield Defence turned out, I am not interested in any more of that.