Samuel_Tow
-
Posts
14730 -
Joined
-
Quote:Say, it's entirely possible the world will end in 2012. The Mayan calendar says so. Would you happen to have any evidence that this won't happen? It would really put my mind at ease.Originally Posted by Frosticus
well unless you know for certain it isn't coming in some form I'll just say thanks for the expanation of information that I already know.
You don't know though. I don't know. Time will tell, I hope I'm wrong, but I obviously don't think I am or I would not have said it.
The numbers you cited for powersets/AT's support what I said rather than disprove it. -
Speaking of new weapons, I'd actually like to see at least a couple of flintlock pistols and rifles that aren't borrowed from any of the NPCs. For instance, and I know bringing up WoW is a bad call, here's an eccentric rifle that would fit right into City of Heroes.
-
Quote:Dragonica has you start out by fighting sheep and TREE STUMPS. I'm not joking. They move on to frowning wolves, but because the game is decidedly in the "goofy" category, you go on to fight frowning cats wielding plingers, sea starts, and a pirate shark with a hook, a flintlock pistol, a cutlass and even what looks like a British navy hat with a white wig. But that's not the worst of it.Originally Posted by rian_frostdrake
you know what gets me as even more annoying? play a korean freemmo. Every one i have tried this far ha had me bludgeoning the cutest, least hostile creatures i have seen. I suppose it is a cultural aesthetic thing, but i dont want to be stomping fluffy bunnies, i want to be fighting the meanest, ugliest monsters in the room(often, in my case, as a big ugly monster myself). Never understood how that was enjoyable. I did a beta for ether story online, an aggressively cute standard freemo, and let me tell you, my first targets were cute little tree creatures, super cute little pink rabbit like blobs with a big smile, and little cat/lemur looking creatures.
9Dragons has you start out fighting helpless foxes that don't fight back and honest-to-god rocks. At least Dragonica's tree stumps move around and have faces. 9Dragons' rocks are just... Rocks. Black stone obelisks you punch and break. Looking for a RING! How the HELL does a ring end up inside a monolithic block of what looks like cut granite? The whole game is filled with these stupid quests, like breaking stones to find a ring, killing disgusting, crawling demons without legs to find a comb or searching through cow dung - I am not joking here - looking for I don't remember what. Or if you're sent to look for one specific enemy that is somehow involved in a plotline, you end up finding a dozen of him. Like I'd go out to look for Kai, the Brigand who robbed a woman, only to find three of him rubbing shoulders and walking about.
Speaking of which, people complain about what enemies do in City of Heroes and how pointless some of the spawns in missions are, but... Well, most MMOs don't go even remotely that far. 9Dragons has hellish demons spawning on a moor, because... The Cool Aid man is red, I guess. It's never explained. It's a moor, and demons spawn on it. Go kill 'em. And it's not like they DO anything. They spend half their time standing around looking in the distance and half their time walking around aimlessly. And not just demons. Maybe demons get off on loitering. But even bears, too. You'd think a bear would have something better to do with its time than to walk 10 feet to the left, stand around, walk 5 feet to the right, stand around and so on and so forth all day. What is the bad people's evil plan? To flood the world with aimlessly wandering demons?
And, yeah, I have to echo the "killing pigs" sentiment. I HATE it when an MMO starts me off killing cockroackes, rats, bunny rabbits, bats or any other kind of vermin. Some Fantasy games have the good sense to start you off fighting incredibly wimpy humanoids, but that's rare. I enjoy that City of Heroes has me fighting people from the start not because that makes them stronger, but because it feels like I'm getting right into the action. Killing boars and snakes in the forest feels like I'm some kind of chump who's hoping to one day get a real sword with which to fight real enemies. -
Quote:Well, certainly. Though powergaming is more the desire for ever greater challenges, whereas mine is more the desire for ever greater LACK of challengeOriginally Posted by Laevateinn
On the contrary, I think your position is more popular than you imagine. It's the entire point of powergaming and minmaxing, after all: to trivialize difficulty, then dare the game to kill you.
Granted, a game CAN be too easy, but where one draws the line is a very subjective matter. From reading the forums, it seems like many people prefer the game to be hard to play so that they have to be powerful just to break even, whereas I like the game to be easy to play so that I have to be powerful only to kick *** and chew bubble gum
And I didn't really min/max much out of Torchlight. The game is absurdly forgiving for that sort of thing, as every item can be enchanted seemingly infinitely (barring a minor chance to break it) about as long as you have money, which produces some... Overpowered results. That, and I found a bug similar to what Sierra's Diablo Hellfire had. Curious... -
This thread may be a bit pointless... Well, more than is usual for me. Please forgive me for that, because this is something of a revelation for me, a brainwave that finally put into words something that I've been trying to say for years on these forums.
Now, we've all seen the debate about difficulty countless times - is City of Heroes too easy, or is it actually kind of difficult? Now, I know what you'll say: "Of course it's too easy!" A lot of us who come here to the forums. To a point, I will agree - many of us who come here to the forums simply know how to game the system, and if there's one truth about City of Heroes, it's that the system willingly offers us PLENTY of ways to game it if we so choose. So on the one hand, the game really IS too easy, because it's designed with a base level difficulty that is rather below even borderline top-of-the-range performance.
On the other hand... Well, I've talked about how I don't want every fight to be a boss battle, either figuratively or literally, how I want to feel strong, and I want to feel like I don't have to scrape by and gang up to defeat my enemies, but rather they have to gang up to defeat me. And while I love my long-winded explanations so very much, something happened to me today that just put it all down to a single sentence.
I started playing a game called Torchlight today. It feels like a new-age remake of the original Diablo in WoW-style semi-cartoony graphics. More to the point, on Normal difficulty the game feels like I'm playing a tank-mage. I picked a ranger class to play, because the ranger was the only girl (and the warrior was ugly as sin), but I managed to stack so much armour on her that most enemies can't even register any damage and I overdid my offense so much that what doesn't die in a single shot dies in two. So, yeah, a tank-mage. I had my share of fun dominating the various hellspawn in my way, only really pausing to consider my safety against genuine bosses, always taking the lead antagonist's taunts on the chin and smiting his minions swiftly.
One boss, when I got to him, taunted me with something to the effect of "How dare you interrupt me! I will kill you for your insolence!" My immediate, instinctive response was "I would love to see you try!" And you know what? That single sentence is an embodiment of my holy grail of gaming experience, and practically everything I've ever truly enjoyed in a video game. Ideally, it would always come to this. Ideally, that's the sentiment I want to have.
I don't want to be afraid of my enemies. I don't want to walk into a room and think "Notgoodnotgoodnotgood!" or "Oh my god! It's a boss!" I want to know that I can take care of myself, that I can rely on my own skills and powers, and that I can stand my ground. I want to know that I'm safer than always just one slip-up away from catastrophic failure. I want to look at danger with excitement, not apprehension. I want to hear a boss say he will grind my bones and have my immediate, instinctive, subconscious reaction be "I would love to see you try!"
I realise mine is a biassed, unpopular position, but I don't want to approach new and dangerous enemies worrying about what they can do and fearful of the danger. I want to approach them excited that I have found a worthy opponent and itching for a fight. I want to approach the level boss and not want to do my best to avoid as much of the fight as I can. I want to approach that fight looking forward to it, looking forward to seeing him try. And fail.
I beat the boss in question, by the way. He turned out to be FAR tougher than I had expected, and he really did end up pushing my limits quite a bit. But in the end, he tried and he failed. I just hope the game doesn't toss me a cheating boss later on. -
Quote:What the! *unplugs webcam* Why was this thing on?!?Originally Posted by Blue Rabbit
"titbits"
*cue Beavis & Butthead laughing sounds* -
Quote:Granted, they're my words, but they're what I inferred from the tone I read in your post. The mistake was mine in saying "I don't appreciate being told such and such" when you didn't actually say it. I was speaking more in terms of a general attitude towards the matter, which really did come off as "You want more slots? Well too bad!"Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
I never said that players were wrong for wanting more slots. I said I didn't think the devs are going to give us extra slots.
"Stupid, unreasonable, and shouldn't happen" Those are your words Sam not mine. I never used them, and again I also never said I was against getting more slots. What I actually said was that I don't think the devs are going to give us more. Big difference there Sam.
Also, I'm not sure assuming the developers won't give us any extra slots is a safe bet. They gave us extra with City of Villains, they gave us extra with with one of the recent Issues. Who's to say they won't just plop down another page of purchasable slots? Who's to say they won't throw in another 6 free with Going Rogue? It would make sense, after all. The expansion would (or at the very least SHOULD) create plenty of new opportunities for unique characters. Now, you can easily say "Meh, so make them on another server." but why NOT let people have their cake and eat it, too? Is there any real downside to allowing more slots?
Come on, man, you're better than this. Sliding scale arguments are a really cheap trick. Yes, people will always want more. That's no argument to not give them more from time to time. In fact, just stubbornly doing the opposite of what people want because they'll never be satisfied is pretty bad policy.Quote:No matter how many slots the devs make available per server there will always be players that will want more slots because they filled up the ones they already have.
How about:Quote:If we are going to indulge in our altitis then we have to take responsibility for our actions and accept that at some point we are going hit the limit and we'll to have to decide to . . .
A. Delete some characters
B. Transfer characters to different servers to make room
C. Start another account
D. Sacrifice slots on other servers to get more characters on the one I'm currently playing? I will never EVER play on Virtue. Ever. And this has nothing to do with the people there. Virtue is a West Coast server and I live in Eastern Europe. For me, Virtue lags significantly more than, say, Victory or Pinnacle. I am practically incapable of playing on Virtue because the performance of the game on that server is garbage from my end. Of course, that's just fine - I have other servers I can play on. But that's till potentially 36 slots I'll never have access to.
I'm asking this seriously, do you honestly foresee a problem with this? -
Quote:Tone down, yes. Take out, not so much. I've not seen a Void Hunter stun a regular AT or inflict extra damage, but even a lieutenant Void feels like a boss battle for a Kheldian.Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
Done long ago.
My biggest problem with Kheldians, though, is their performance-to-survivability ratio. They can tank, yes, but you can't run around in Dwarf Form all the time with only three attacks, even if Dwarf damage is actually pretty good. They can deal damage, too, but again in Nova Form where they have all of four attacks. Human Form, where they have the bulk of their abilities available, has both underwhelming damage AND little hit points. Seriously, like Defender hit points.
I tried playing one a while ago, and I just couldn't get it to work to my expectations. Too fragile, too weak, too spread out. Despite their shields, they're even more susceptible to being shock-killed than Blasters, and that's saying something. -
Oh, come on, man. That's completely unfair, and you know it.
Quote:The POINT of playing the multiplayer portion of the game is to play with people you like and enjoy teaming with. These people are, for the most part, on one server. I'd like to stick to that one server and play with them. Recently I got involved with a really cool group of people on Pinnacle, but with half my characters on Victory and no more room on Pinnacle, I spend half my time away and by myself.Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
If you choose to limit yourself to playing on one server that's your problem not the devs. Your account has 132 slots It's not the devs fault you choose not to use them all. As to losing a name you can easily check each server to see if a name is available before doing a transfer.
In fact, you have to have seen the continual requests people make to sacrifice slots on one server for extra slots on another. You can't just up and say "If you want to play on only one server, you're SOL. Neener neener!" Are you seriously going to claim that people are wrong for wanting more slots on their home server? Seriously? Because precedent has shown that the developers have continually increased the available slots.
So, the solution is to buy another account? Do I even need explain why that is a HORRIBLE idea? It's like telling someone to "just buy a new car." Not everyone can afford that. I can't afford that. I can barely afford my subscription right now, there's no way I can justify buying the whole game and maintaining another subscription. At all.Quote:Of my 165 characters, 45 of them are on my main server. Like many loyal players I have multiple accounts. I know people here on the foums with 4 to 5 accounts. Nothings stopping you from doing the same.
And then even if I did, what about my veteran status? Half the costume pieces I use are from veteran rewards. What about my booster packs? I have at least $50 in bonus packs, and it's not something I want to just buy all over again just to break even.
I don't want, nor can I support a second account. And, frankly, I don't appreciate being told that what I want out of the game is stupid, unreasonable and shouldn't happen. What does it hurt you for people to ask for more slots on their favourite servers? -
Quote:What is this rosebud thing and why does everyone but me know about it?Originally Posted by Zekiran_Immortal
*snerk* rosebud is so first version. Besides, motherlode was where it was at, man! Don't you know ANYTHING?!
/noclip please. -
Quote:Wasn't City 17 supposed to be the same thing?Originally Posted by UnSub
Tyrant is actually the greatest hero in existence since he has pretty much eradicated crime and created a society that provides for all.
Discuss. -
Quote:Does City of Heroes actually support SLI now? It didn't last I checked.Originally Posted by Ban_Sidhe
I splashed out on a GTX260 when it arrived. At the time it gave the biggest bang for my buck, and as they come down in price it becomes increasingly attractive to add another card in SLI mode. So far it's not disappointed.
-
Quote:I think House said it best, when asked if an unborn child should be aborted to save it and kill the mother even if it'll die, or if it should be left in longer to let it develop and have a better chance.Originally Posted by Arilou
The tricky point with utilitarianism is when you start to consider potentials: IE: How many would have died if I *hadn't* acted? Does a thousand potential deaths outweigh a hundred actual deaths? Would those thousand people have died if I had acted differently?
"I don't know. How old is it? If it's a month in, I say pull it out and let it die. If it's 8 months in, I say let it wait and kill the mother. Personally, my breaking point is 5 months, 6 days and 3 minutes."
Obviously, House being a jerkass, this isn't exactly an answer, but it underlines a key point - it's impossible to put a definite point where justified atrocity becomes too much atrocity. You can't say "I would sacrifice 1000 people to save my country, but since you're 1001 here, I'll have to let you go."
In fact, wasn't there something like that in the bible? When God proclaims he'll destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and whoever saint was there essentially barters with God "But what if there are a few more? Would you destroy it for a handful more than that?" and God agrees that "OK, if there are a little more, then no, maybe not." The way the story was told to me, that goes on for at least a few rounds of back-and-forths, but I'm don't know enough to say for certain. -
Quote:This is utter nonsense, not to put too fine a point on it. Since when is the definition of art "conveys message?" The fact that critics tend to be able to spot hidden meaning in places even the original creator never suspected there was any aside, a large portion of so-called "art" is commissions done for profit. How many great paintings are just portraits of noblemen? How much music is commercial garbage made to public expectation, rather than any artistic initiative? This is the train of thought which leads to pompous mediocrity cleaning out all the Academy's Oscars via cheap, overbearing drama and Oscar bait. This notion that ART!!! is somehow this majestic, mysterious, almost divine substance which should shine on its own merits is just silly. Moreover, such a distinction between what is art and what isn't art is patently pointless. A work's value is a question of its own merits, not a question of semantics.Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
Well see, the difference is that in a song, or a painting or a movie, art is used to convey a message of some kind; often personal, sometimes politcial, but always very important. At least to the person who made it.
Now videogames came from a different angle from that. The main point of a game was not to invoke an emotion or convey an important message. It was something else entirely. I'll admit that with videogames, it has already begun moving away from that. But like I was trying to say before, I don't think it's exactly there yet.
And, really, even if we go with the "conveys message" definition of art, to claim games don't is short-sighted in the extreme, something I'd attribute to someone who's never played games before, were it not said by a person on a game's message board. Certainly by THAT definition, not all games count. Things like Doom, Dangerous Dave or Jet Pack certainly don't convey a message, not unless you think far harder than you're supposed to and invent it, but there are plenty of games that do. The Silent Hill games, confusing a mess as they may be, are deeply rooted in symbolism and the examination of the human psyche. The Resident Evil games typically deal with the folly of human greed and arrogance. The Prince of Persia games, though more amusing than deep, still deal with the questions of responsibility, choice and consequences, the next-gen Prince of Persia taking it to a brand new level. Even Oni, Bungie's "last game before Halo" deals with the consequences of irresponsible industrialization and the soulless world it can create.
Even if you measure purely by virtue of message conveyed, games still deliver. And I don't really want to hear an argument about how they're not supposed to and it's just a commercial drive. The distinction between art for art's sake and art for a living shouldn't exist, and artists who dare to want to be paid for their work, or indeed make work they know they'll be paid for, shouldn't be looked down on. -
Quote:This isn't a test of honour. The only thing you achieve by responding to taunts is derailing the thread more and more, thereby shooting yourself in the foot. Ignore it. Let people say what they will. It's the Internet. That's what happens. If you try to fight it every time, you'll never get anything done.Originally Posted by AresSupreme
I'm not the friggin president. If someone says something rude or irrelevant about my post I will respond accordingly, what would you have me do? Dude, you are unreal. Just take two seconds to think, go ahead. Say hmmmm, now does any of this make any sense to you?
Really, you don't want to engage in a Robowar. -
Quote:That's good enough for me!Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The precedent for that would be something along the lines of a SEAL team or platoon commander, either an Lt or a Captain, being accepted into the naval special warface development group (what used to be called SEAL team six) and working on new tactics and training, and being promoted in that unit to a higher rank. Up to that point, you have a reasonable analog with real life. Then the fictional jump happens when that person is recruited from there into the more superhuman aspects of the character backstory. "Super Soldiers" don't really exist as such in real life, but they are not inconsistent with the fictional world of City of Heroes.
Seriously, I love this discussion. It's teaching me a lot of things I was highly unlikely to learn any other way. -
Quote:I'll take that as a "yes"Originally Posted by Doughboy
Yes. In the spec-ops world, unusual things happen. You could even include something in his backstory about him earning his promotions up to captain and leading troops, then becoming a special operative and having his bosses make him a colonel so he had a little weight to throw around when necessary.
I don't want to go into specifics because I know full well no-one really cares about the finer points of my character concepts, so suffice it to say it's complicated. The gist of it is, in rough: Soldier who excels at killing things, semi-retires into spec-ops training and experimental programmes, returns to the action as a super soldier lone operative given the most important missions. Then things take a turn for suck absurdity that it's not worth discussing in a thread as realistic as this
Basically, your confirmation seals the deal and puts to rest a back-of-the-mind worry I've had for around 10 years now.
*note*
Just for a little bit of a sneak peak, the "Colonel" I'm looking at is my own namesake and oldest character, whom I never got around to writing a finished story about. -
Quote:I'm right with you there, believe me. I'm already knee deep in Standard Code Rant even just speculating about these things. But I try to keep spirit of speculation about trying to make sense of precedent and what it could mean, rather than trying to estimate unprecedented possibilities. Someone once said that developing a game isn't so much down to knowing how to programme as it is down to knowing exactly how the particular game is set up and what you can do with it. Obviously, some raw programming from scratch plays a role here and there, as I'm sure the Type R programmings are proving, but by and large it's not a question of what you can code, but rather what you can tweak in the game's setup to get the results you want. As I understanding, writing brand new unprecedented code is an absolute last resort.Originally Posted by Morac_Ex_Machina
Hmm... good point. I had forgotton about emination points.
Yeah, I know, standard code rant, but as a programmer I can't help but think about such things.
Generally, the holy grail of power customization comes down to system ability, which I suspect might be a question of more fiddle, workload, which is probably the big stumbling block, and an actual uncertainty - should we ask for a brand new look for old powersets, or should be we ask for brand new powersets altogether? The workload, at least in terms of visuals, seems to be about the same, but do we want, say, an ice pistol to be a brand new powerset, or just Ice Blast with a pistol? Do we want a Crossbow to be a precise copy of Archery, or do we want to be a new powerset altogether?
Despite myself, I don't actually have a good answer to that. On the one hand, I'd love for all powersets to let you choose if you want to shoot them out of your hands, chest, face, a handgun or a rifle. On the other hand, the amount of work this would cost and the amount of animtion redundancy and lack of animation detail isn't necessarily worth the outcome when that same effort would undoubtedly produce at least a few brand new, really cool, really novel powersets. And I can't say which I want more.
Again, look at precedent - Dual Handguns look AWESOME! I know they're not everyone's cup of tea and some people want simpler animations and blah, blah, blah. The animations are very detailed, very pretty and very creative. And yet Castle mentioned how much more effort the fire whip for Demon Summoning requires, and that can't be more than three attacks for a Mastermind. Cool powersets take time, effort and creativity. Asking our art team to essentially triple or quadruple all powers in the game, even if it were at all POSSIBLE, would undoubtedly produce redundant, simple attacks, exactly like what we got at live, which isn't actually that exciting. On the flip side, focusing this time and effort onto something new produces comparatively less in terms of quantity, but very high in terms of quality. And if I have to be quite honest, quality is something City of Heroes can use more of. All the new stuff is really great, but it's built over a backbone of things that just aren't up to scratch. I think aiming for additions of as high a quality is possible will be key for the future. -
Quote:That was kind of what prompted me to ask this in the first place, though. In my case, it's a soldier who goes up to around Sergeant rank, but then leaves the military almost entirely and joins an entirely separate branch, essentially abandoning his old post. I understand that such a thing doesn't happen in real life, because the sort of "entirely separate branch" wouldn't exist in a non-sci-fi world (at least I wouldn't think, we don't have genetically remodified super soldiers yet, do we?) and as such is subject to an entirely different hierarchy.Originally Posted by Human_Being
If an enlisted soldier is raised to Officer rank through Officer Training School, it tends to happen fairly early in their career. If a soldier spends a lot of time as a Sergeant, they tend to stay a Sergeant for their career. A Sergeant may eventually be granted the respect of a Colonel (see: Plummley in We Were Soldiers; who, yes, was a real person), but would never, ever have equivalent authority.
Essentially, imagine a "super soldier" special force with operatives who are given operations that, in final effect, could result in about as much military gain as several conventional divisions. In this case, think Colonel Burton on steroids: Do you send a bunch of tanks, war planes, hundreds and hundreds of men to attack a heavily-fortified enemy installation, or do you send Colonel Burton to go in there, blow up their HQ, their powerplants, their war factories and their combat vehicles, and knife half their personnel just for good measure? The effect is comparable, but the cost is significantly less, but if Colonel Burton needs tactical support, he ought to have the authority to get it.
I suppose you could call this a promotion, as it IS about a soldier going from a field rank to one of the higher officer ranks, which would make it improbably in a conventional armed force. But consider him to operate outside of the armed forces in general.
In fact, and I will go back to Mass Effect again because that actually has a PERFECT representation of what I was talking about, consider him something akin to Mass Effect's Specters. He is an operative who receives his missions directly from central high command, rather than from any commanding officer, and whose missions are given about the highest priority there, such that he could commandeer military supplies, resources, personnel, facilities and whatever else he may require for the completion of this mission. Not QUITE Specter level, in that the Specters were the highest authority AT ALL and answered to absolutely no-one, and the operative I have in mind would still work WITH the armed force, rather than separate from it, but that sort of working relationship is what I had in mind.
The reason I didn't open with this and opened with a question on ranks, instead (other than getting my more conventional Major straight), is that I'm fairly certain that is way, way out of the norm in real life. So instead of focusing on something I pretty sure isn't realistic, I wanted to get a sense of what the rank I had in mind for this unrealistic setup actually meant, so even if the premise doesn't work quite like that in real life, at least the details would be about on target. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Catwhoorg
Sam, if you are not aware of the background behind goatee = evil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror,_Mirror_(Star_Trek)Did you mean this? It's what Wikipedia suggested, instead.Quote:Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. -
Quote:Again, Standard Code Rant applies, and trying to suggest how easy something is to introduce to the game when you have no knowledge of how the system is set up (none of us really do) is plain and simple bad form. You don't need it to make an argument on the subject, so just try to avoid it. It looks bad and I've no doubt it makes the people who actually develop the system roll their eyes.Originally Posted by Morac_Ex_Machina
Running example: crossbows in archery.
Setup weapon change UI in costume screen to something more like shields (ie Nested, with super-category for Crossbow or Regular Bow, and sub-category for particular model). Easy.
Have the choice in the super-category limit what animations are available in the power selection screen, and implement forced changes if you change the the super-category. (ie. if you switch from regular bows to crossbows, it forces you to take the crossbow animations at the power-selection screen. Ideally, this wouldn't cost inf, but that's a nitpick). This is the hard part, but it is only hard in that there currently exists no way for the weapon selector in the costume screen to communicate with the animation selector in the power screen (that we know of).
That said, you have a good point about shields in that they come in variants with subcategories, but those are just compound costume pieces no different from a cape or an aura. Shields are a costume piece which the system summons in accordance with the animations it plays, but they are not a costume piece which actually affects animations. I16's power customization is, I'm almost positive, something that doesn't run via the same mechanic as costume pieces at all. Shield animations control a particular costume piece - the shield. That shield is just called upon, but doesn't control animations at all.
And again, you have to remember that we do not get to pick what weapon class a powerset uses. Weapons that powersets use come complete with the powerset you picked. If you pick Assault Rifle, you get Assault Rifles. If you pick Broadsword, you get Broadswords. Short of cloning the same set multiple times (something Castle has shot down so hard I think he dented the moon), the system is currently not designed to do that. And I don't feel we're in any position to guess at to how easy this new tech would be to implement, absent an already-existing precedent.
The fact of the matter is that each weapon set comes with ONE weapon class, which has ONE pool of available weapons in it and ONE class of animations, each of which has ONE pool of possible alternate animations. In order for this "emanation point" customization to work, a powerset would need to allow for several different classes of weapons, each with its own pool of unconnected options, and it would need to come with several classes of animations, where each power would have multiple, mutually-exclusive pools of possible custom animations, distributed exactly in several classes. Currently, the system cannot do that, and I've no idea what it would take for even the basic infrastructure to be enacted. And even if the functionality exists, would BABs be willing to commit to the kind of work creating new weapons and animations that could, almost as easily, be harnessed into the creation of new powersets?
It's a very good ideal, but it's actually quite unlikely. -
Quote:Hmm... Due not quite knowing what the word "goatee" means, I didn't catch that in time, but a search around the net educated me. Turns out I have a goatee, as well. My boss keeps telling me to shave it, but it's around 5 centimetres off my chin now, and it's starting to get in the way.Originally Posted by Morac_Ex_Machina
Counterpoint: I also have one. WHATCHA GONNA DO NOW!?
Does that make me evil, too? -
Quote:To some extent, you have a point. Chain of command details would probably serve me well if I wanted to detail an entire armed force (which I might want to do at some point, but not any time soon) and I needed to describe which character would be in charge of what. However, I'm a bit of a character-centric writer (for what little I've written) in that I rarely want to deal with an entire group of characters and have to worry about rank, file, inter-personal dynamics and so forth. I'm most comfortable with one, at most two protagonists, maybe a couple of supporting characters and with everyone else being... Well, everyone else. As such, when I try to give someone a rank in an armed force, I'm more likely to be concerned with his direct rank, what authority it gives him and what responsibility it requires absent of actually putting him as an integral part of a working army.Originally Posted by EnigmaBlack
I don't think Samuel needed chain of command info, because that will differ just about anywhere you go. He just needed some of the basics.
I actually needed to define two characters that I had originally pegged as a Major and a Colonel (or colonel-equivalent special forces). The Major is the Major Badass variety, in that her primary qualification and raise to prominence is unmatched combat ability and the command of a Predator-style small squad of crack troops (ironically led by a colonel in the movie). That's why I kept asking if a Major could be more a specialist than an actual commander, though in my major's case, her actual role in my story is that of a real commander, so I can certainly see her raise through the ranks as an elite soldier but eventually take on a more organizational role with the advent of much experience.
My Colonel equivalent, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. He starts out as a common soldier in charge of a particularly proficient squad (which would probably make him a Sergeant at the time), but eventually moves out of active front line combat and into special forces, to specialise in covert operations and sensitive missions. This both gives him significantly high security and confidentiality clearance, as well as the authority to commandeer resources for his missions as he sees fit, because the tasks he is given tend to be more critical than most of the thing more regular army units are typically engaged in. I don't think I ever directly gave him the rank of a Colonel, and if I ever gave him a rank, it'd be Special Agent or something to this effect, but his active authority, the way I see it, would be just around that of an acting colonel.
I hope that make sense. -
Quote:Settings and cosmetics. I'm not against an underwater zone, e.i. a zone physically under the water. I'm opposed to a zone that IS the water, as in a zone filled with water.Originally Posted by Lemur Lad
So you're behind the option that is essentially pointless and leads to no significant changes in gameplay? Then why bother?
However, look at precedent - the bulk of Longbow bases are already said to be underwater, and some of them even have submarine pens. Having portholes open in them to look out into the water, and even a few crossings from section to section underwater, would be a very good change.
A full-scale underwater zone that never put you in the water would be really odd. Bioshock was that way - if it weren't for the windows looking out into the ocean, the whole thing could take place underground or in space. It's a game that takes place in an underwater city, yet you never actually get to swim. An underwater zone, be it a city under a bubble dome or a city with lots of portholes, would more or less REQUIRE some swimming. But if we can retain that swimming to cosmetics only, meaning you can swim underwater, but you can't fight there, that could aid the settings without intruding on appeal or game mechanics. -
Quote:Actually, you're both wrong. Tim Burton's Batman reigns supreme!Originally Posted by Eiko-chan
Frank Miller Batman is lame. All boring angst and looming and brooding and contrived martial arts nonsense.
Adam West is where it's at. Just the right amount of fun and serious, with quirky but amusing gadgets to save the day. Including convenient shark repellent!
Batman: The Brave and the Bold is exactly where superheroes should be going - including Aquaman.