Samuel_Tow

There's nothing wrong with women looking big and clunky. This is half of what I've been suggesting for female costume designs since David started asking for ideas.

Please don't try to dictate definitions for me when you know perfectly fine what I mean. Trying to dismiss my suggestions by presenting them as some niche unwanted offshoot of the much broader concept you claim to be a fan of helps no-one when you are, in fact, arguing for FEWER options.

As Tenzhi suggests, I want to see ears and hair as optional attributes, so that you can have your bald, head-fin shark and I can have my hair-having, glasses-wearing shark if I want to. The more customization options and variability there is, the better.

Turning this into a semantic debate and an ideological one is not productive. Arguing what you don't want me to have is not productive. If you want to draw your vision of anthropomorphic characters from myth and legend, that's fine. I draw mine from cartoons and video games, and that's what I want to see.

*edit*
I figure I should add this: Are you suggesting that I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of shark heads because they don't conform to my definition of what "anthropomorphic" means? Because I'm not. I'm using the term to explain the visual aesthetic I want and the visual aesthetic I find insufficient. If you don't like my terminology, imagine I'm saying "enraged kumquat" every time I type "anthropomorphic." You know what I mean. It doesn't matter what I call it.

And I have to counter this with a question of my own: Is the basic mentality of "being defeated" even relevant in today's gaming scene, after so much about the psychology behind gaming is so much better understood? What I mean by this is we've already seen a fair few games break the paradigm of "defeat" as the governing mechanic of game success, and instead replace it with... Well, "success." In these games, you don't lose, you're prevented from winning. You're not killed, you simply didn't do what you needed to do in order to succeed. In this way, gameplay isn't gated by defeat, it's gated by hurdles.

Prince of Persia 2008 had a VERY good approach to this. Whenever the prince was about to die, Elika - his constant super-powered companion - would save his life. If the prince fell down a pit, she'd pull him back to the last stable platform, thus resetting the current jumping puzzle. If the prince was about to get stomped by a boss, she's blast the boss away and be left exhausted, causing much of the boss' health to recover. In both of these cases, "defeat" was not interpreted in the archaic sense of "Game Over!" Continue?" but more with the explanation that those stumbles were just part of the gameplay. You slash at a boss, dodge a few moves, get knocked down, Elika blasts the boss away, you get up and keep slashing. It's all part of the same flow and it's all part of the game. At no point does the game pretend to "end" and ask you if you want to reload or continue. To me, that's far, FAR superior.

You say that defeat is intended to encourage people into playing seriously, though I'm interpreting loosely. To me, that's the wrong approach. Rather than motivating people by punishing them for doing it wrong, I'd much rather see players being encouraged to do it right, or indeed even forced to do it right, as is the case with Prince of Persia. Gate success behind a certain requirement and simply require the player to perform this requirement, or let the player opt out of success, progress through the story and simply not get rewarded. This way, you don't require anti-incentive for failure because you supply posi-incentive for success.

To make it much simpler, I see defeat penalties as that Penny Arcade comic strip about teaching people to swim by shoving them in the deep end and yelling at them to "OK, now swim more and drown less."

Arcana is saying what a number of us have been saying since NCsoft stopped publishing subscription numbers years and years ago - you can't extrapolate useful information about the game's success or failure based on those revenue numbers. Quoting the numbers and drawing a conclusion about the game's success - be it greatness, failure or mediocrity - is about as justified as drawing the same conclusion based on whether Matt Miller wore a tie to work on the solar solstice three years ago.

Revenue numbers have proven to be badly misleading in the past. Irrespective of what conclusion you draw based on them, the fact remains that you shouldn't be drawing conclusions based on them.

I don't think the wolf head is cute, it just looks like a wolf. For as much as I respect Leo and his Darkstalkers werewolf, that guy's exaggerated for dramatic effect. Yes, a wolf in full snarl mode would indeed be scary, probably more so than the Monster heads we have, but again - it'd be a wolf head. John Talban doesn't really have a wolf head. He has a head that looks like it came from a wolf, but it's much more expressive and the fur on the neck looks kind of like hair.

That's actually my problem with animal heads as direct ports: Animal faces aren't expressive. I'm not saying animals can't express emotion - they very much can. They just achieve this through body language and behaviour much more so than direct facial expression, at least not in the way we'd recognise as humans. That's why I really have very little use for direct ports of animal heads - they look unexpressive and the characters behind them thus look less like characters and more like bipedal version of those same animals. Neither a wolf nor a shark can exactly smile, for instance.

The wolf head is fine. If anything, it's just far too small, especially for women.

Yes, we are. What you're describing is a barely adapted animal character, which to me is not "antrhopomorphic" in the practical sense, it's only adapted enough to be able to walk on two legs. To me, this is not enough, because that's not the sort of character I want. I'm sure it may be the sort of character you like, but arguing what SHOULDN'T be added is not a good strategy, as far as I'm concerned.

No hair, no ears, no fun. I simply don't think direct adaptations of animal heads are viable, which is why I'm always pushing for anthropomorphic heads that are usable with existing head details. If I want a shark with hair, with a hat, with reading glasses or with a half-helmet, that's a lot more customization that just a straight-up "animal head" of a shark. I'm sure you disagree, but that still puts you in no position to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

They're perfect for animal characters, not so perfect for anthropomorphic ones. None of the animal heads we got from the Animal pack are usable with hair, none of them can have human-like face accessories and pretty much none of them appear able to close their mouths. These look like stuffed animal heads, with the bovine one expressing about as much emotion as a disembodied cow head, with its herbivore vacant stare and eyes on the side of the head.

I'm not interested in making animal characters that happen to walk on two legs, personally. I'm interested in making humanoid characters whose personalities are not wholly contained within the quirks of the animal they represent. I want animal faces that look like they at least COULD be expressive and animal heads that could use at least some of the same accessories we can use on our human heads. If you'll notice, one of the sharks heads I linked to had reading glasses. I want that.

So call it something else. I want an anthropomorphic human head with a shark snout and shark teeth. As I started out saying the very first time I quoted, I don't like sharks or fish in general and I wouldn't like a direct port of a shark head. Neither, for that matter, would I be interested in an "adapted" head like Makos. If a head can't have hair, I have almost no use for it.

That's not a bad idea, actually. I was just about to comment that this latest pic posted has pretty much the exact physique I want for Xanta, and this is actually a possibility. Probably not NOW with all he expenses coming down on me, but maybe soon. I'm guessing this isn't the thread to discuss it?

*writes down* Noted! That works, too.

Also, this. I think we can use a whole range of shorter boots that don't go up to the knee. More regular shoes like trainers, better sneakers, loafers and so forth, short boots and things like this. I'd really love to see a broader selection of this, because right now we're a city of knee-high boots.

As I said in the other thread - yes, they do. It's an artefact of turning the head to face forward and moving the snout to stand at an angle to the face. And the hair. It's what it would take for me to take sharks seriously - anthropomorphising their heads. Again, I know these don't resemble real sharks. That's the point. I don't believe a real shark head can be made in such a way that works. Champions tried real shark heads and it looked like suggestive themes. Mako tried to go for a shark look and he looks more like a lizard.

Unlike other times, I'm directly suggesting the addition of anthropomorphic characters specifically. NOT animal characters, intentionally specifically anthropomorphic.

I don't know... That doesn't sound too far off from my own definition of "cute." I find Shuma-Gorath to be pretty cute

I never really realised just how true this statement is until I got a few years of City of Heroes behind my belt and then tried branching out into other MMOs. Talk about a disappointment. It seems to me that MMOs have been retreading the same tired old design that dates back to something like EQ which, thanks to WoW's meteoric success, simply became ingrained in the market to the point where everyone's doing it. It's getting to the point where new releases are just WoW with a new coat of paint tossed over them, and with some sort of gimmick to HOPE to set them apart.

The MMO market needs to start evolving, or else it's going to die a horrible death of stagnation. We've seen enough new games try to be the next WoW fail HARD than there really should be, and for what it's worth, City of Heroes remains one of the few to actually have its own identity, sort of. I can't wait to see what actual creativity can produce in terms of MMOs, because we're really at the point where a bright new idea can wipe the floor with all but the WoW, pretty much.

I actually think that's viable, since that's more or less what Detonator does to henchmen. Let's look at what it does to non-sentient henchmen since that's closer to the truth. On non-sentient henchmen, Detonator grants a new power, which deals a lot of damage and then commits "silent kill to self." There are no limits to when you can activate detonator, but the henchman is still bound in terms of when he can activate this by the ability to activate powers. If you catch a robot in the middle of Full Auto Laser, the robot will wait to finish that attack before detonating. If you catch a robot being knocked back, the robot will get up before doing so. If you try it on a robot who's still landing, he'll finish his foldout and then deotnate. I don't see why this can't work on Time Bomb.

Right now, Time Bomb is an immobile pet. Like War Hulks, it has a power it uses when it is killed, and it kills itself under certain conditions. It should be a simple matter to create a Detonator-like power which forces a self-kill to the target, but only if the target is tagged "time bomb" and the target's owner is the same as the detonator's owner. This prevents the Devices Blaster from detonating enemies and it prevents the Blaster from detonating bombs belonging to other Blasters.

We can also use the Titan Weapons mechanic of Momentum, but NOT to swap versions of the power. If you play Titan Weapons, you'll notice that two of the set's powers CANNOT be used unless the character is tagged as having Momentum. This is actually a very old tagging mechanic, the same which prevents Kheldians from using Human Form powers when they're in Crab or Squid forms, and the same which prevents you from using powers in the Architect Studio B or when you're dead. So have the character enter a "Time Bomb" state several seconds after setting down a time bomb, which normally times out to coincide with the Time Bomb's timed detonation. Then have the Detonator power only active when in the "Time Bomb" state. When activated, the Detonator would cause any pet tagged "Time Bomb" with the same owner as the caster of the power to self-kill, which would in turn trigger the pet's Time Bomb power which deals damage. Using Detonator would take the character out of the "Time Bomb" state and make the power grey out once more.

Yes, this means that if a Blaster has laid down more than one Time Bomb, it would detonate them all, but with a recharge time of 6 minutes and a lifetime of 15 seconds, that not just unlikely, it's impossible. It also has the benefit of not having to select the Time Bomb to detonate it, even though technically, using Detonator as I described it above should auto-target the bomb if the Blaster has nothing selected. Henchmen upgrades for Masterminds will always target henchmen over hostile targets and inapplicable allies when used with no active target, for instance. I assume powers have some variety of /target_custom_nearest with conditions corresponding the power's target specifics.

Either way, this is doable, but I would STILL hate for the power to be interruptible. I hate interruptible powers as a general thing, at least outside of very special circumstances.

See, the thing is... I really don't like that design. I don't like the spear tip head, I don't like the traffic cone neck and I REALLY don't like the human ears in there. I get that Mako is supposed to use like a shark, but he looks as much about one as the Orange County Choppers Statue of Liberty bike looks like the Statue of Liberty - he's a guy with physique elements designed to give his head the profile of a shark head. If anything, he looks more like a Krogan.

What bothers me the most is his head looks like it was intended to look like a shark head viewed from below, but the shark's snout is actually the top of his head, with his very human-like face scrunched down to where the mouth would be. It's almost like those shark mascots that have a conical prop shark head with their faces popping out of the shark's open mouth.

I don't know, he looks cute to me. A lot more so than Felicia, with her cloven feet and thighs twice the size of her waist.

That's exactly what I mean - sharks don't have hair or ears, but to me, that's what makes these sharks usable when the others wouldn't be. That's why I find anthropomorphic representations of animals more appealing than straight ports of photo-realistic animals. It's why I find my Feline-face-using Panda girl with a full head of human hair more compelling than by photo-realistic-bovine-head-using "cow girl." It's also why I feel shark heads can't work unless they're anthropomorphised.

You're right, a lot of those sharks look like dogs, some more than others. But that's less because someone drew them as dogs and more an artefact of what happens when you rearrange a shark head to conform to a human head layout, with eyes above the mouth and the shark snout shifted lower and positioned at an angle to the face. Sharks have heads the width of their bodies that point away from the body itself. You can't do that with a humanoid, is what I'm saying.

I don't ever expect to see anthropomorphic sharks in City of Heroes. For as much as I respect our art team, I just don't think we have the artists for it, as anthropomorphic animals take a different midnest from conventional human and human-like characters. It's been eight years and we've not had a single anthropomorphic feature done with the right balance. They're either so human they look like body art or props, or otherwise so alien they look like horror movie prosthetics or actual animal bits stuck on human bodies. Anthropomorphic characters need a particular kind of balance between the two, where they still come off looking like actual people, but are just "off" enough to be interesting.

*edit*
What they look like is crocodiles, if I have to be quite honest. Not spot on, not really, but the heads I posted do resemble crocodiles more than they do sharks. As dragons take a lot of inspiration from crocodiles in their basic design, I can actually see your point quite clearly. They do look draconic.

Again, Leo's pic is a lot better in terms of artistry and anthropomorphism. I mostly wanted to add the concept of having hair with these heads, as well as the triangle teeth which, sadly, Leo's pic lacks, going for a more canine bite, instead. I really feel that a head with a large mouth full of triangle teeth just by itself would be a good substitute for a shark head.

I don't know. That's kind of why I like to talk to myself. It's nice to have an intelligent person to talk to on occasion.

---

MAN that makes me come off like a larger-than-usual jerk...

Despite what the banner ad and the slogan of "Play for free! Forever!" might have you believe, City of Heroes is not a F2P game, strictly speaking. You can play it for free, yes, but it doesn't really conform to the traditional F2P model. It's still a subscription game, primarily, and one which spends most of its time trying to fleece extra money from VIP subscribers, no less. Premium is decent mostly if you drop to it from having been a long-time veteran where most of the locks are removed, and Free is pretty much an extended free trial, I'm sad to say. In fact, other than the level 14 limit and 15 day time limit, pure Free accounts NOW are even more restricted than trial accounts used to be.

Pretty much, the way I see Freedom is as something that's aimed at getting people to subscribe as quickly as possible and then proceeding to get them to pay extra above that subscription. And I'm fine with it, bizarrely enough. For the first time since the game's creation, Freedom actually gives us the power to vote with our money. Releasing things players ask for is no longer just good public relations in keeping players happy, it's a direct source of revenue, which is smart business. Before if I argued for something I wanted, it was just an impotent request. Arguing for it now, I can base it from the stand point of "I would pay for X!" and actually have the ability to put my money where my mouth is.

Counter-intuitively, I pay more for this game under Freedom than I did under the old model, and I feel less weird for doing it.

I want you to know I'm literally laughing out loud That's OK, Leo, I can look on my own. Don't want to drag you down with me.

Yeah, it's funny how much the context of a pic changes when you crop out just the head. I remember Sellephane used a demon head from a far more explicit pic without realising it. She had a laugh when she found out, though, so kudos for that.

Incidentally, where did YOU see the full versions of these pics, and may I have a link?

As for assuming it's "furry-hate?" Call me jaded. I can't make two posts on the subject around these parts without someone proclaiming me a weirdo. Then again, maybe I should relax. After all, I have most of those people on ignore these days, so it should be safe.

Yeah, it ain't Fox News.

See, when I talk about what could have made for a better story, this is kind of what I mean. Having the Statesman fight Wade alongside the player would have been awesome. Bonus points if Wade traps him in the Spell, and the Statesman is clearly dying, but he fights through it an assist the player in the fight, with his health constantly draining. When both Wade and the Statesman are down, THEN the scene plays out, with Wade getting back up, rejuvenated by the Statesman's power.

See, in that situation, there would have been no question about giving up. He would not have given up. Even when mortally wounded, the man would have fought to the last breath until he had literally nothing left to give. That would have been a death I could respect and a death I could admire.

But, no. Because the Statesman's death wasn't planned as a grand event and his final swan song, sending him off with the fanfare of a true hero. Nope. People talk smack about his for several arcs, then he shows up to die, having contributed nothing to the plot. Story opportunity wasted. Good job.