Samuel_Tow
-
Posts
14730 -
Joined
-
I'd settle for a helmet, myself. An actual, whole helmet.
Hmm... For some reason, this reminds me of Jamie's "whole penny gun." -
What are you talking about?
-
Quote:First of all, Blaster secondaries are essential to a Blaster who wants to solo, and if you ignore them, I can see why you would have problems. Second of all, Blaster sets are tagged "support." What you're asking for is not a set a Blaster could have, so you are in effect asking for a brand new AT. I'm not actually AGAINST the idea of such an AT, mind you, but you can't sell that as a new powerset. Finally, giving Blasters self-protection would really skew their balance with the offensive numbers they have, meaning that if such an AT were ever made, I wouldn't expect anything near Blaster damage out of it.Originally Posted by HeroJunkie
Well, my blasters don't use their secondaries as much anymore, since the increase to blaster ranged damage. I actually gave up on blasters there for awhile, except for my ice/elec blapper, which I still play sometimes and enjoy. But now, with good ranged damage, I find myself enjoying blasters again, but also taking few powers from the blaster secondaries. -
Defence and how it's implemented in City of Heroes is probably one of the few remaining griefs I have with the game as a whole. It's a convention, yes, but it's also an amalgam of two things that have NO BUSINESS being combined into the same mechanic - avoidance and deflection. It's like putting soup and diesel in the same bowl. They may both be liquids, but that doesn't mean they're pretty much the same thing.
Avoidance and deflection are linked together by one thing and one thing only - the fact that both manage to avoid damage entirely. That, however, is where the similarities end. Most prominently, defeating avoidance is entirely DIFFERENT from defeating deflection. To defeat avoidance, you must aim better and hit faster so as to actually hit the character you're aiming for. Deflection, on the other hand, is based around shields or armour, and defeating deflection is a matter of piercing armour or shields. Now, a game which had that as a concept would have armour-piercing or shield-piercing weapons and powers, or even weapons and powers which can break armour or shut down shields. The latter extravagance notwithstanding, defeating deflection is still a matter much less about being accurate as it is about hitting with concentrated force.
I've seen arguments about why being accurate could help you punch through a forcefield, why it can help you strike through stone armour, or why it can help you harm an invincible man. I've even made arguments to the same effect, and even so I can say most of them are nonsense. They rely on an after-the-fact justification of the system and conveniently ignore that having rocks encasing your body can be defeated not just by shooting the right spot, but also by plain and simple using high-powered, armour-piercing rounds. There is simply no system meant to handle this in the game, and I think it's a pity.
With all of the above in mind, it's really bad form to try and strip defence from characters when immobilized, held, unaware or what have you. You may be able to prevent them from dodging, but a character surrounded in an omnidirectional bubble forcefield isn't going to be any less hard to hit then than he would be normally. Unless we develop a brand new system for handling deflection separate from avoidance, that really will never work. -
Quote:But smashing damage isn't actually any less lethal. If we're looking at it from the perspective of attacking a human enemy, killing people is oftentimes EASIER with blunt force trauma than it is with a blade. Blunt force trauma to the head is especially dangerous even with lower force. People are not nearly as sturdy to being beaten on or shoved around as movies and cartoons would depict. Getting thrown through a wall, off the second-storey and landing onto a car below doesn't just hurt. It can be deadly, or at the very least causes serious injury. At least as serious as a gunshot to the limbs, if not more.Originally Posted by KaliMagdalene
They're not saying baseball bats aren't lethal, but lethal damage in this game is slashing and piercing-type damage, and crushing damage is more like baseball bats, punches, and maces.
-
Oh, for the love of... What is with you, people? How did me saying
Quote:Prompt the rep comment:Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
For instance, in the 90s Fox cartoon X-Men, Wolverine spends the bulk of his time KICKING people, and on the off chance he tries to slash them, he gets grabbed by his wrists like a woman. In the immortal words of the great poet: lame!
What is with this sudden explosion of straw feminism? Is someone specifically stalking me just so that he/she/it can accuse me of sexism? Think about fiction, think about comic books, think about your run-of-the-mill damsel in distress. When she is kidnapped by the bad guy, how does it happen? One of three ways.Quote:The vaguely sexist comment about Wolverine's wrists being grabbed like a womans seemed uncalled for.
1. He slings her over his shoulder with her beating her fists on his back to no effect.
2. He grabs her by the upper arm and walks her off.
3. She tries to stab him with a knife, he grabs her by the wrist and either knocks her back or takes her knife away.
This is standard damsel in distress practice which continues to be used to this day, and I don't feel that's any big example of sexism so much as expression of how a weak but good character is overpowered by a strong, evil one. It's not even restricted to a woman being kidnapped by a man. I've seen the reverse more than a few times, but that's not the point. I referenced a commonly-held convention so that I wouldn't have to explain it. You know, exactly like I'm explaining it now.
What is with you people? Is mentioning a woman in any context not insultingly patronising now seen as sexist? I got chastised for NOT mentioning women already, so you're not exactly giving me a lot of room to work here. -
Quote:Here is my question, and this is an actual question, not an argument: what is the proper term now? "African-American" doesn't cut it when you're not actually IN America, and English is used all over the world. Like in the UK, say, and African-British doesn't strike me as an actual term. I've found myself without a good way of saying this so many times it's not even funny.Originally Posted by MrCaptainMan
Once upon a time, 'negro' was deemed an acceptable term of reference for a certain type of human by 'society at large'. In 50 years, maybe some scholar will look back at us using 'he' in a gender-nuetral way, and they'll shake their head and wonder at the 'innocent' prejudice of their ancestors.
-
Quote:BABs said that, and I agree with him. While I may still want to see elemental weapons in as alternatives for conventional weapon sets, I still want to see them retain the set's FUNCTION. Swords stab and swords slash. That is, literally, the entire point of having them. Baseball bats don't stab very well, and I'm not sure it's possible to even IMAGINE them cutting. Therefore, a baseball bat in a set that's all about cutting and stabbing is out of place. Big time.Originally Posted by BrandX
Baseball bat in mace works, because BOTH...let me bold that...BOTH...are smashing damage.
Dual Blade and Katana are lethal weapon sets. The devs have already said (or was it just BABs?) they weren't going to give lethal damage weapon sets, smashing damage weapon skins and vice versa.
So, no, the reason for it isn't thrown out the window. -
Quote:Yes, which is why I threw in the comment about complicated names as an offhand "I don't like" comment. And again, I LIKE your set, which is why this is so frustratingOriginally Posted by Leo_G
You did catch the post of mine agreeing to tone down/change power names and descriptors, right?
-
Quote:Oh, I'm not saying trick shooting in itself is a suspension-breaker. Far from it. It's when it's overused to the point where it pops up in more and more absurd situations and completely bumps off the REAL use of guns that it bugs me. One character consistently trick-shotting, that I can swallow. Everyone always trick-shotting or, failing that, just holding their fire? Ugh...Originally Posted by Rodoan
I do see your point, but I don't find the trick shooting an entire suspension of belief. Not after reading what the real Annie Oakley was capable of doing.
-
Quote:Eh, I wouldn't bother turning reputation on. It's not representative of anything, really. Positive or negative, that number is largely meaningless. The only reputation that really matters is the one you have with people's opinions, and that's not something numbers can express.Originally Posted by M_I_Abrahms
Ended up turning rep back on because of this thread. Funny thing was, the only Neg rep I had before then was when someone tagged me responding to my 'Happy Birthday' thread.
-
Quote:"They" lacks a -self variant that isn't unambiguously plural. I can't use "themselves" when I am referring to what is clearly a single person. Even "you," a pronoun which is identical between singular and plural, has two -self variants - "yourself" for singular and "yourselves" for plural. In general, the selves suffix assumes plural just on its own, because it comes from from the actual plural word "selves."Originally Posted by MrCaptainMan
Gonna have to disagree with you (a rarity) on this one Sam. Your stuff about spending "years trying to write around it" strikes me as protesting too much, when 'they' is only 2 letters more than 'he', and 'their' is one one more than 'his. I don't think you're justified in thinking that too onerous.
Eco.
I can kind of bend my brain and say "they didn't use their power" to mean "he/she didn't use his/her power" if enough context confirms I mean a singular person. But can you honestly tell me that expanding "he used his power on himself" into "they used their power on themselves" can in any way, shape or form be read as singular? My brain refuses to accept this.
I said I spent years "writing around" this, e.i. trying to write using "their" in place of a personal pronoun. And I wasn't exaggerating. Back when I first started posting here in 2004, I did my best to use "their." I went out of my way to not state "he" or "she." Only recently (late-year 2009) did I finally concede and drop this. Why? I kept painting myself into such corners that I could simply not end a sentence using "their" where ending it using "his" would have been simple. So I reworded, rewrote, retried and generally went through a lot of trouble, until I finally gave up. Trying to rectify what has got to be one of the most insignificant quirks of the English language just isn't worth the effort. -
Quote:"Why" is pretty much everything I've been saying. One long explanation as to why I feel the way I do. I gave you plenty of examples, I explained it multiple times, and "spitting" on you is all you chose to take away from it. I can't say I didn't try.Originally Posted by Leo_G
"No, that's wrong."
That's pretty much it. No 'why' it's wrong or 'how' it's wrong. Whatever. It's just a fun idea, is all. Like I said, we're pretty much done here. From what I've gathered, the suggested set could work but a re-imagining of the theme is needed.
I'm not "pressing" an opinion. I'm "expressing" an opinion. I don't like the names, and I'm frankly tired of repeating the reasons why and being told I'm not saying why while simultaneously told that my reasons are wrong. It IS subjective and it IS an opinion on aesthetics. What would you have had me say? That I like the whole thing inclusive even though I don't? That I say nothing at all? What?Quote:But my beef is also a carryover from the other set. You expressed a dislike for the theme I made for the death scythe set and it was understandable as the powers really alluded to that theme. But here, you're basically pressing that opinion but it's purely an aesthetic issue. They're just names and descriptors. They don't define the power, the effects and players do. Are they *bad* names? Do they not describe what the power does well enough? Is it stepping out of some sort of bounds that Headsplitter isn't?
Might I remind you that I stated, multiple times, no less, that the only power I actually have a real, tangible problem with is your Taunt/Build Up combo? Look at it:
"The insatiable hunger for blood" of my weapon. There is, quite frankly and quite bluntly, no going around that and no claiming that my weapon is anything BUT a blood-hungry, semi-sentient entity. With that power in there, and especially with that explanation, this weapon set is not usable by any concept which does not involve a blood-hungry, semi-sentient weapon unless we step into the territory of dismissal that claims you can just say your Energy Blast is Water Blast, or that Fire Blast isn't really fire but some kind of illusion. I can claim anything, but I can't make a REASONABLE claim at some things.Quote:The insatiable hunger for blood your weapon has can be temporarily warded off using your own blood. By sacrificing your own blood, you get the same benefit of your weapon defeating 3 foes for the maximum duration. The damage bonus only lasts as long as BU but the +rech and special foe defeat buffs last for 30 sec.
Again (and again and again) I don't mind picking a theme, and even if I don't like your names of choice, I can deal with them. I hate the names of Katana, yet that hasn't stopped me from playing it. As long as you can keep the feel of the set while simultaneously not inferring there is a demon in my halberd, I'll be happy.
You make the call whether I'm "spitting" on you. And if you still feel that I am, just say so and you'll never hear from me again. That's a promise. -
Quote:I think "the foundation of the fundamental basis" would be more redundant, though that was a deliberate jokeOriginally Posted by Klatteja
I think the bottom line consensus (is that redundant?) is that courtesy is relative. There is no general standard of behavior/etiquette, so the team leader must communicate what he/she/it/they expects of the other players invited to the team, if the team leader holds certain things to be important. Without that communication of expectations, there is no crossing of lines as there are no lines.
Seriously, though, this bit of wisdom is something all team leaders should learn and follow. Communicate, set the rules, establish the parameters and make sure everyone is game BEFORE problems occur. And if problems occur anyway, solve them on the spot. Letting hurt feelings simmer is probably the worst thing that could happen.
I would add one more caveat to that - team members should, themselves, speak up and state their opinions and preferences, such that leaders could either accommodate them, or warn them off in time. There's no sense getting onto a TF expecting it to be a speed run and then complaining half-way through when you realise it's a kill-all run. Speak up BEFORE it becomes a problem and make sure you're signing up for what you think you're signing up for.
I know I'm becoming redundant (here's a shocker) but I cannot emphasise how important it is, as a school teacher once put it, to "use your words." Don't assume, expect or suppose. Ask, tell and arrange. -
Quote:Without sounding like a jerk, it's how the language goes. Unless you want to claim "mankind" is deprecated, the term "man" stands for both a male in particular, and for a person in general.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Yes, it's perfectly clear that you find it easier to assume regard men as the "defaut setting" for humans.
But, yeah, go ahead and accuse me of chauvinism because I refuse to use gender-neutral pronouns that don't actually exist in the English language. Go ahead and claim that, because I use "he" instead of "he/she," that's shows I disrespect women and believe them to be some kind of addon to men. You need a bad guy to talk down, I'll be the bad guy. Go ahead.
Tell me how I'm oppressing women by refusing to acknowledge the possibility an undefined person may be female. Tell me how how I consider them lower and less significant. I'm male, so clearly I feel men are the most important, and that the old traditions of male domination should hold. After all, why else would I say "he" to regard a person who might, in fact be a woman? What possible reason might I have, other than to assume that the people I'm talking about would probably be men, anyway. And if a woman reads it? Who cares, right? I mean, it's a woman, and women shouldn't be here mingling with the men, so who cares about addressing them? Tell me how I'm unfair and perpetuating a horrible misconception about men being the "right" thing and women only a deviation.
You're clearly thinking it, and what other explanation could there be for me saying those things, after all, so go ahead and say it. I promise I won't argue. I'll just accept everything you have to say and admit whatever it is you wish me to admit. You want an inconsiderate man, so just tell me where to sign. Would that be enough? -
Can we give the Statesman a helmet that covers his whole head?
-
Quote:Saying "he" isn't assuming a gender-unidentified individual is a man. It's a speech convenience, so I don't have to keep saying he/she all the time, or try to figure out how himself/herself would work if I used "they." It's not a mark of disrespect, it's just a simple convenience that makes it easier for me to speak when it is PERFECTLY CLEAR what I mean.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
So is assuming everyone is a man when you write.
-
Quote:You know, if that's what your approach is going to be, then I want out. You posted this here, I assumed you were looking for opinions, and this is mine. You don't have to like it, but if you start insinuating that I'm "spitting" on you, then I take offence. I came in to discuss this because the discussion was interesting, not to step on you or bring you down. These are my views on what I like and what I want to see. If you can't accept me having them so much that me saying "I don't like" insults you, then I don't want any further part in this.Originally Posted by Leo_G
Sorry if I sound angry but I am. It's like spitting on someone because they're different or not conforming to your ideals. It's annoying.
-
You're going to have to come up with something a little more... Epic if you want to really push for a new set. Just cheap shots and knives isn't really something that would be very appropriate for, say, a level 50 hero fighting Zeus Titans, Rikti and the Soldiers of Rualruu. Hell, how can you even kick a giant eyeball in the crotch? Or a robot, for that matter?
And, really, "a gun" is probably the most uninspiring final power in any set that I can think of. That's doubly as bad considering "a gun" is what even the wimpiest of level 1 Hellions starts with and what the wimpiest of Thugs Mastermind attacks actually is. Even something as relatively non-flashy as Broadsword has a special place for its final attack, with fancy "pillar of pain" effects, a rather dramatic swing and its ability to cleave through up to five people. -
Quote:My premise was "other than Sniper Rifle," as we were talking about whether I was using it or not. That, and being interruptible and so slow, Sniper Rifle only half-counts. I considered counting Ignite, as well, but its DPS is pretty low, its setup is pretty cumbersome, especially against bosses (which is where it's actually needed O_o) and the fact that it takes almost as long as a snipe to animate, anyway. It has a four second animation.Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Burst, Slug, Sniper rifle. Thats three.
Although I know blaster maths is very simple, so you an be forgiven. The usual equation is, after all; Mob + Blaster = Dead
And the dead has the bonus of working both ways
Look at it this way - I don't have a lot of choice but to use Sniper Rifle. If I don't, my only single-target attacks are Burst and Slug. -
Quote:See, that's my BIGGEST problem with non-lethal force - taking lethal weapons and cheesing your way out of using them as intended. Shooting enemies' guns away, stunning them, blowing up vehicles as people clamber out, or out and out hitting people with your gun are just cheap. If you're gonna' use a gun, frikkin' USE it! Like I said, I don't necessarily need to see blood and guts and death, but any time I watch a cartoon or read a comic book where a character passes up a perfectly good opportunity to just shoot someone and instead tries to, say, shoot a rock high above so a boulder will fall down, or shoot a rope so the trap door under him will open, it just ruins my suspension of disbelief.Originally Posted by Rodoan
In fact, both characters go out of their way to train to skillfully shoot to disarm, not kill.
I am literally more willing to accept people getting shot and not getting injured too much (with the assumption that shooting them more will eventually have an effect) than I am to accept people perfectly capable of killing each other, yet not doing so in favour of more and more contrived ways to use lethal force to non-lethal effect. The aforementioned full-scale military battles ending up without a single casualty are just absurd, and it that REALLY shows especially in cartoons that try to avoid bloodshed. Even if they cop-out and call them "blasters" and claim they're non-lethal, they will STILL try to avoid depicting people shooting each other with them.
Bleh! -
Quote:That's an interesting way of putting it, actually. And I have to agree. Going up the levels, concept-wise, my characters are struggling, fighting against the odds and generally carving their own adventures. Post-50, they turn into the mentors and old-timers, the people who have either moved on to bigger things that don't give them much time to patrol the streets, or who have withdrawn from the fight altogether. They're also my Mary Sues, characters I purposely keep OUT of the action because of how overpowered I perceive them to be.Originally Posted by Primal
50 is most assuredly "the end", I consider characters retired and doing their own thing independently of me at that point.
But it's good, though. That's exactly where they belong. -
Quote:Generally, I'm willing to trade off a little "realism" in return for a less conservative depiction of lethal force. I want to see my swordsmen slashing, my riflemen shooting, my fire masters burning things and so on. It doesn't necessarily have to kill or dismember, in graphic or in intent, and in fact I'm perfectly happy to see the only reaction a common thug has to getting shot being reeling back for a bit.Originally Posted by KaliMagdalene
It's traditional in superhero RPGs to treat damage as non-lethal by default, unless the player explicitly defines it as lethal. This is because in games, it's harder to control mortality the way a writer can, and mortality just isn't a strong issue in most superhero stories.
-
Generally, as far as etiquette goes, I'd say "try to be nice" is about all that needs to be said. If you want your glowies, say so. If someone takes your glowies, ask them to leave them for you. If someone asks you to leave their glowies, politely do so. Communicate with your team, settle problems as they occur (as opposed to two hours later when you're boiling mad) and try to make sure everyone's on the same page and meshing in well.
It's surprising how well people can get together when they talk to each other and try to be nice. The very WORST thing that could happen, really, is someone will decide he (or she) just doesn't want to be on the team, which, really, is perfectly acceptable in my book. Try to play with the team, and if you can't, leave. No harm, no foul.
-
Quote:Well, for what it's worth, you have my support in airing your reputation comments as you see fit, and would actually encourage you to do so more often. The reputation system has given birth to some truly priceless comments, and it would be a loss to just let them sink without laughing at them a littleOriginally Posted by KaliMagdalene
I don't think there is or should be any guarantee that stupid comments won't get aired, although some are just too stupid to even acknowledge...and some are either fair, or a matter of disagreement. For people who think I'm running around posting about every single neg rep I receive - I'm not. It depends entirely on the content.