Samuel_Tow
-
Posts
14730 -
Joined
-
Quote:The problem is that you can't really fake it that way unless you make the combat stance active, e.i. twirling. However, that would look patently ridiculous, as you'd be spinning ALL the time, which is just bad, visually.Originally Posted by Vanden
I think it's far more likely that they'd just fake the momentum by giving the attacks very long animation times like in Dual Blades.
Anything short of that and you can't really fake flowing momentum, because invariably you return to a static stance. Dual Blades can sort of cheat by having the attacks sort of lead into combat stance at the end, which makes it somewhat less visible, and with swords you can sort of fake it that that's just where they pass through. However, even with Dual Blades, it's not entirely clean. The smaller, lighter attacks are relatively good in this regard, but the bigger attacks that include radical footing and wild swings always have a very tangible "recovery" period at the end, which really brings things down a notch. For instance, Sweep goes like:
slashslashslash wait STIKE wait wait wait slash slash slash wait spin wait spin/sweep wait wait wait
There's a lot of waiting in there, even inside the attack animations, themselves. It's not much in terms of raw numbers and performance, mind you, but we're talking about a theme here, and a perpetual motion swinging weapon would need to work WITHOUT pauses in animation whatsoever. Granted, you can't make a set without pauses at all, but you CAN mask the pauses by having the combat stance animation appear active, like you're still doing something even if, technically, this is recovery time. You can't do that with the current combat stances, because they're all "idle" and wouldn't look good with an active animation, so we need something in-between idle combat stance and attack animation, such that we don't have to route through anything static and idle.
What worries me the most with a scythe, halberd or quarterstaff, though, is the prospect that the set could end up being stiff, like what just about every other game does. Jerky, sweeping motions and single attacks with lots of idling. A scythe isn't a weapon you can just pick up and hit things with. Hell, it isn't a weapon at all! So to use it and make it look good, you need a very spectacular technique, and I just don't think such a set would be worth playing without it. Then again, BABs has already pulled off one amazing feat with Dual Blades, straying away from the Broadsword model of "hit it down, hit it sideways, hit it twice." It works for Broadsword (and War Mace and Battle Axe) and it'd probably look well for a two-handed hammer powerset if we ever get that, but halberds, pikes, polearms and, yes, even scythes, aren't something you can use like this. -
Quote:Well, the reputation itself as a number is easy to ignore, that much is certain. However, the information which comes with reputation (occasionally) is actually valuable. It's the things people think but wouldn't say to your face in an open forum, and much as it irritates me at times, knowing that is useful. However, as with forum posts in general, it's kind of one-sided. You get reputation, be it good or bad, only when you do something big enough to get people to want to bother and give you reputation. And even then, some people have a higher threshold than others. If we had a consistent habit of rating people a lot of the time, all of us, it might be a little more universally appreciated, but right now, given the ratio of posts to rates I have, getting ANY reputation at all is actually pretty hard and rare.Originally Posted by Dr_HR
something ive had to get use to now is that people cant seem to take things with a pitch of salt.
theyrd ratehr bad rep u then confront u. sad tbh. just do what i do, unless its something massive (comment wise) ignore the rep u get. if people love ya..flow with it..if they dont...let them cry in a corner.
Then again, I still read and enjoy my comments, good or bad. Call it vanity if you will. I don't usually go around asking people what they think of me (usually
), so having that backdoor into public opinion is actually a plus. Pity I could never quite grasp the concept of rating people. I just place my thoughts right into the forum, so I never really have anything left to rate with.
-
I hope it doesn't come off as corny, but you're absolutely right. Technically, the Architect can already do everything you've listed, and if the Architect can do it, it can be made into official content. I guess some discussion could go into the matter of exactly WHAT your nemesis will be doing in these missions, as an effective name-swap may not be in-concept with the character who is supposed to be the nemesis. For my title character, his nemesis will be my title villain, who already has quite an elaborate setup.
If we do get a Nemesis system added to the game at some point, I'd expect that the sheer volume of content needed to make it work would be the biggest stumbling block, much like hand-editing zillions of effects scripts was to making power customization happen. If I were a bit more of an optimist, I could theorise that the developers are already working on this covertly and will announce it as a feature at some point, but for the sake of being realistic, I wouldn't have my hopes up.
That, and one point that keeps getting left out of Nemesis concepts is something I got shot down over back during I14's Beta - JUST having missions where you can predict your nemesis will be there isn't enough. That's what people told me, and I tend to agree. Here's the cool thing, though - we already have a system which allows extra out-of-faction enemies to be appended to existing spawns. Why not let your nemesis spawn like that and just pop up in your missions here and there? You know, just to harass you. Imagine you're fighting your umpteenth gang of Freakshow, when you turn the corner and take a Stone Hammer to the face. "Long time no see!" Something to that effect. It shouldn't be frequent at all so you EXPECT it, but just frequent enough to pop up once every few days.
In fact, depending on the nature of the Void Hunter Insertion system, that may actually be doable with current tech. -
Quote:Well, yeah, but I still think we need to find something else unique about it that doesn't tie it specifically into darkness. I guess you could make it demoralising, as any large weapon would be, but...Originally Posted by Leo_G
Unless they throw some complicated additional effect like Combos into the mix, I can't in all good conscience suggest another weapon set. Not because of the damage type but because of lack of new intuitive playstyles.
BUT...if the animations effectively convey the feel of a 2-handed weapon and has at least 1 thing that really really unique about it over other weapon sets, then I wouldn't be too against it just being a scythe.
Well, let me extend an idea I've been throwing around for a possible Halberd set and put it in here. Let me start with a little depiction - when I think "large scythe," I think of that one iconic scene in Soul Eater (probably the only one) when Maka faces Jack the Ripper - as seen here to some truly terrible but fitting music. Watch through the initial setup and see the fight up to where he gets cut, the rest isn't as interesting (isn't as dynamic). The reason I bring this up is because that's the only way I can imagine fighting with a "weapon" as impractical as scythe without reducing yourself to just a series of wind-up slashes. That's the problem with anime in general, though - there is too much fighting in their battles and many come down to a Final Fantasy standoff with each combatant throwing in special attacks, with little to no actual dynamic contact combat.
Depiction over, that's the dynamic I want to see in such a large set. We went over this with the thread about Cloud's Buster sword last year - large weapons are impractical to use in fits and stops, and even if you have the great strength to do so, they just don't look right or feel like they have weight behind them. As such, a large weapon is best used in continuous motion, as swings turn into spins and feed directly into subsequent swings, all appearing as a single, unbroken motion. To this effect, we want a system to actually preserve and forward that feel.
I'm not sure it's at all possible, but here's what I have in mind. Currently, we have a combat stance from which each attack starts and to which each attack returns at the end of its animation, causing even fast sets to run in fits and starts. What if we avoided this with an extra, intermediate combat stance. Say the default combat stance with the scythe out when not doing anything is you just holding it upright. However, every time you attack, you go through a an additional state, one of turning the scythe into a spin and holding it there spinning for just a moment, attacking, and returning to that spin. The trick here is that if you queue up another attack or fire one quickly thereafter, you can launch into your next attack QUICKLY, whereas if you wait, your character cuts the spin (taking a second) and resumes normal stance, having to them spin it back up again (taking another second) before he can attack.
Essentially, this is a set which would reward fast, aggressive fighting by giving a LOT of speed with no loss of power, but ONLY if you stay on top of it and keep pressing the attack. If you stop, you slow down hard. This is to simulate the notion that the weapon is unwieldy and slow, but can be DEADLY in the right hands, and only if you can keep it going. It's kind of like a Blaster with Defiance - if they keep on attacking and play aggressively, they can kill faster, but if they slow down, they kill even slower. Same idea here, but with speed instead of damage.
It's just a concept, really, but it's the only way I can see a large, long weapon used in any way that doesn't make it look clunky, and it seems like it would be a pretty unique mechanic for the set. -
Quote:Essentially, that it can be weaponised and used to further military goals sort of like the Predator UAV? Yeah, I would agree that's a valid concern, but this is actually part of my problem with the uncanny valley - a lot of the things that make certain concepts creepy aren't their being uncannily similar to humans, but rather the presence or lack of a human operator on the controls, which goes back to trust once again.Originally Posted by Dr_Mechano
See Big Dog had me worried for reasons other than the uncanny valley, the same reason that the MKV hoverbot has me worried, the MKV stands for Multiple Kill Vehicle by the way.
seriously, do a google search, there's videos of this thing in an unweaponized state currently...
In fact, to reiterate that point once again, I recently went through Resident Evil 5, and despite the fact that all of the characters land squarely into the uncanny valley (aside from Chris Redfield's humongous neck), motion capture cutscenes and amazing facial animation make them quite enjoyable to watch. Japanese game producers have this tendency of making their characters as ultra-realistic as they can, with realistic, flawed skin with moles, spots, pimples and so forth, and what has failed them in older games like the original Silent Hill was the fact that they all basically had a single, unbelievable expression.
And odd as it may be for me to say this about a game that very much is the definition of creepy, the facial animation did not creep me out (nowhere near the grates over bottomless pits, unexplained wheelchairs fog sirens), it just make me feel like someone dropped the ball on the FMVs. Granted, with them being so stiff, I couldn't really attach to the characters and care TOO much about them (then again, it's been like 10 years), but again, that's more bad quality than unsettling creep. -
Quote:That's actually why I keep reputation hidden - it's not realistic. And mine is positive, mind you, so I'm not hiding from bad rep. In fact, I was kind of surprise it wasn't negative, given how confrontational I can be.Originally Posted by The_Thorny_Devil
I know people that I consider to be negative most of the time. I also know people who always seem to be happy. I don't understand either. I always try to be positive, but sometimes I do get down. And you know why? I'm only human. And so are you Sam. (I hope
) If someone gives you negative rep, ignore it. Its as simple as that really. A little red dot against your name means naff all.
More importantly, though, I enjoy reading the comments that come with it Sure, sometimes they bug me, but at the very basis of it, they are a control mechanism which gives me feedback for my actions, and anything is easier to do when you get feedback from it.
-
Quote:That... Is so... COOL!Originally Posted by Silver Gale
The Uncanny Valley effect is probably the best example of how subjective reactions can be. I'm very sensitive to it, but my fiance isn't. The video of the Big Dog robot gives me a major case of the creeps, but he just thinks it's a nifty machine. I remember watching a movie about the Big Dog back a year or two ago, but it seems they've improved on it a LOT since then. I just love how well that thing deals with uneven, rugged terrain. There's a reason humans and animals can look beautiful when they move - the technique is just so effective.
But, yeah, I'll have to agree with your fiancé on this one - I think it's a nifty machine which can solve a lot of really difficult problems if it ever turns into a reliable technology. I tried to make myself get creeped out by the thing, imagining it like half a dog with machines on top or a very awkward spider, and I CAN see where that would come from, but it just didn't work on me. I was too busy being utterly amazed at the things it can do.
Essentially, I never saw this as anything more than a machine. Some people make self-guiding jeeps, some people make self-locomotion quadrupeds. Until they give them an intelligence which actually has will and opinion, I just can't take them as real creatures. Heck, I'd love to have one of those, even with the HORRIBLE droning noise
-
Now, I want to apologise for starting back on this again, but I have a REALLY slow Saturday at work.
Now, I remember this discussion we had, and I actually rather enjoyed it before it slowed down. However, I just got done with reading the article on the uncanny valley on TV Tropes, and I am... Let's say "amazed" at how much I disagree with the sentiments expressed there. Obviously, they are people's opinions, so I can't claim they are false, but it's staggering how much I disagree with what constitutes creepy.
Reading this gave me a better understanding of the sort of things people spoke that I previously couldn't even comprehend, but many of the examples of what the uncanny valley of creepy characters encompasses are just... Odd. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within? Shrek? AI? Seriously? I mean, yeah, I can kind of see certain drawbacks to all of these, and I can see the uncanny valley intent in AI, but I never really found any of them creepy. In fact, the comment on Shrek specifically taking a more cartoony approach actually explains why it's all but impossible to find convincing, realistic CGI movies these days. Just about anything Pixar make these days is 3D Cartoons.
I will admit that The Spirits Within had a host of artistic failures, such as lack of quite good enough facial animation and two of the lead characters being almost identical, but the movie overall strikes me as a very serious achievement in the field. Obviously, commercial success might disagree, but there are other reasons for this than the uncanny valley. Seriousl, all I saw bad in the movie, plot aside, were technical problems. Nothing strange or weird. No more strange than watching Lara Croft bob her head without opening her mouth to speak in Tomb Raider 3, at any rate.
I don't know. Maybe I'm biassed? I grew up on cartoons and video games and, yes, I will admit I'm a fan of anthropomorphic creatures. I enjoy the weird, the unusual and the strange, and the only way I can see something as "creepy" is if I actually felt it was sinister and threatening, which stems not from any degree of strangeness, but from a balance point between potential danger and degree of trust. Here's my big problem with the whole uncanny valley concept, in fact - I don't believe it's a question of appearance. It's a question of trust.
We know people are dangerous. A knife-wielding wacko could walk up to you and gut you at any moment, and even the people you know, if they flipped out, could cause SERIOUS damage to you, maybe even kill you. But we don't think about these things, most aren't even aware of how fragile we are and how deadly EVERYTHING can be. We trust people not to hurt us, and stay away from those we cannot trust. Machines, on the other hand, are MUCH more dangerous than people. Something as simple as a woodchipper can be the stuff of nightmares. But we don't HAVE to trust machines. Machines can't think, they only do what they are made to do, so practically speaking, if we follow safety precautions, everything should be fine. It's when you combine the deadliness of a machine with the proactive decision-making of a human being that you start having to trust the machine, and you just can't. That's what makes it creepy.
Except, in movies and fiction, nothing is real and nothing can walk up to you and punch you in the face. Maybe in the future when we invent the Matrix, that could be a more pressing problem, but right now in fiction, all of these "dangerous" things are perfectly safe. With that danger our of the way, I can't help but see the weird and wonderful as endearing. Even when they are written to be evil and sinister, I still at most see them as cool, provided they are written well. In fact, this is the only way I can make and play villains at all - by continuously reaffirming the notion that they're fake and they can't touch me. Because lemme' tell 'ya! If any of the villains I've created ever made it into the real world, it would NOT be fun. -
I want to shy away from the specifics of how and why, because it really isn't as important, but there's one thing I'd like to respond to.
Quote:In general, I agree with you - I tend to not let other people's opinions dictate how I act and what I say. However, and that might be a semantic argument, but I always feel it's a good idea to CARE about what other people thing. You don't always have to act on it, and indeed, I wouldn't advice just kowtowing to peer pressure, but I consider it information in the purest sense. Knowing how people in general react and understanding what they like and dislike, even just vaguely, can be a BIG help in retaining some level of dignity for me. If I posted everything I wanted to post, I'd either have been banned for life or would have been completely hatedOriginally Posted by Kurugi
Personally I tend to not care what other people think of me or what I post. I post my own feelings and opinions on a given topic, nothing more. I tend not to sugar-coat things and sometimes that gets me into trouble, and if something's on my mind I have to let it out. Sometimes that can make a situation a bit confrontational. Is it the most mature attitude to have? No, but it's just how I'm built and while I have done things to try suppress it I think I'll just always be this way to some extent.
I'd also like to thank those of you who gave me their support. I really, REALLY appreciate it, believe me. However, it reaffirms my conviction to keep my reputation off. Since making this thread, I've gotten more positive reputation in, what? An hour? Than I got in the past week trying to be constructive and consistent. I got one negative rep point, as well, though I have some suspicion it might have been a joke. But this is why I don't like a numerical representation of reputation as a general thing - outside of the very few truly great people here on the forums (and I will still cite Arcanaville just off-hand), none of us really deserve the truly high levels of reputation, me least of all. I enjoy the comments, surely, but I will keep my reputation to myself. It's just not real compared to the reality of what people actually really think.
That said, my planed 15-step programme for becoming more positive seems to have failed. Somewhere between trying to give up "bah humbug" and trying to think of ways to cheer up, my enthusiasm hit rock bottom and I retreated to my room to listen to depressing music. I found, to my shock, that I just don't have enough black clothes to make even one entirely black outfit, and I used to! My black jacket is too warm for this weather and my black pants are just too old. And, hell, I don't even have a black baseball cap. How did that happen?
And, please, if I somehow manage to unintentionally convince you that the world is a terrible place and life is meaningless and not worth living, don't believe me. I'm probably wrong, and possibly very confused.
*serious note*
I'm actually currently unable to get myself depressed, which has essentially robbed me of my ability to write fiction. I'm in the process of trying to squeeze dramatic impact out of a more upbeat narrative, and I'm not sure how well that'll work. -
I cannot disagree with the notion of adding Scythe as a new weapon set, but this is as far as I'm willing to go. I don't think the step up from Scythe to DEATH Scythe is a good one, specifically because it's so specific in terms of theme. It's akin to making Broadsword into Holy Sword or Battle Axe into Barbarian's Axe. They're popular themes in myth and fiction, but in a game this customizable, something more open to interpretation and, yes, more generic is required.
Personally, I'd like to leave the DEATH Scythe concept open to those who wanted it via picking Dark Armour, but leave the weapon itself - the Scythe - available as JUST a weapon with no element attached.
Now, yes, I will admit I voted for Energy Blade in the new melee powerset poll (that and Dual Blades) but over the years, I've begun doubting my choice. Yes, a lightsabre is cool to have, but really, outside of Energy damage, how would that be different from just a regular sword? As well, isn't that exactly what the Talsorian Broadsword and Katana are? Yeah, sure, they do Lethal damage, not Energy, but they're close enough. Why, then, bother with an Energy Blade with the only difference between it and what we have being graphics and damage type? Why not focus on a weapon set that is fundamentally different, like twin blades, hammer, quarterstaff or, yes, scythe?
That's the same way I feel about this one. Yes, I would LOVE to have a Scythe as a weapon set (even if it's hugely impractical as a weapon and would require REAL talent to make look interesting in action), but I wouldn't like to see it restricted to just DEATH Scythe. Suppose I want a flaming devil from the underworld with a scythe, like what they had in Heroes of Might and Magic? Or how about just a brute with a giant scythe, like the Horned Reaper? Or, hell, why not a tiny little girl with a giant Scythe like Maka from Soul Eater? Ice, Fire, Earth, Lightning, the list of themes goes on, and it seems like a limitation to make the Scythe so narrowly focused.
All of THAT said, again, I would very much like to see a set like this. -
Quote:That's a very good point. The Carnival of Shadows seem out of place in the industrial-looking, downtown-style Peregrine Island, but against the Rustic Charm of Founders' Falls, they'd actually fit in pretty well. Yeah, I know Founders' only goes up to 40 in terms of enemy levels, but the contacts in the zone go up to 45, and we already have a precedent for a zone like this - Nerva Archipelago is 25-40Originally Posted by NeverDark
Replace them with Carnies. They're supposed to be performing for the upper crust, who live primarily in Founder's Falls. They should exist in that level range, since they spawn in St. Martial.
-
It's a slow day at work (like, I'm just about the only person here) so please bear with this self-indulgent post as best you can.
See, there are certain unwritten laws in the world. Taboos if you will. Things people never say out loud, but everyone sort of knows you're not supposed to do them. Like walk double-dipping or wearing loud shirts. And because these things are LAWS, obviously they need to be policed.
My felony? Negativity. See, I turned off my reputation because I don't believe in artificial reputation representations. Long story. That, however, hasn't stopped me from regularly checking the reputation comments I get in my User CP, because I'm just deathly curious of these things, to the point where getting reputation with no comment is ever so slightly disappointing. The comments I do get are usually interesting, sometimes bizarre, occasionally insulting, but rarely consistent. One comment, or rather one thread, however, has consistently shown up - that of negativity. In fact, of the very few comments I can actually see, I have two that are, to quote:
Quote:Positive as usual... Oh, well, try it some time... Both of them with negative reputation, obviously. Now, I could grow a big head and start weaving theories about how this is some person who doesn't like me and makes it a point to down-rep me every other day, but that would be petty of me. No, I'll do the big thing and assume this is a large chunk of the forum population telling me this. Apparently, it seems I am overly negative, only ever saying things to bring people down and reject ideas. I hadn't noticed, myself, but let's go with that anyway. Since both of those posts point to Suggestions and Ideas, I assume it's my propensity for posting into threads with ideas I dislike and explaining why I dislike them.Quote:Do you ever have anything positive to say?
And, of course, because this is a law, the negativity police are after me, writing me tickets every time I park my butt on the negativity button. Maybe I thought I posted a lot of positive stuff, too, but I haven't really done a tally. I guess my rap sheet looks worse than I thought. I guess I should yield, then. Here, I surrender. Slap the cuffs, throw the book at me and and lock me up in the Super Fun Happy Place Correctional Facility, where I will ride unicorns over the rainbow, dream colourful dreams atop fluffy clouds and pet puppies and kittens all day. Perhaps that will cure me of my black dog of depressing realism.
And when I'm out in 20-30 years, I will take up a job as a Kind Thoughts vendor at the mall, selling broken dreams and hollow illusions to the many happy and cheerful children.
...
Wait, that didn't come out right. -
I think we'll just have to disagree here.
Quote:I've been told that numerous times, and I know for some people just taking the bricks and making their own creations is the best part. For me, it's torture. I'm a creative person, but I'm creative with words and numbers, not objects.Originally Posted by Kitsune Knight
pfffft! Legos were most fun when you chunked the manual!
Perhaps in terms of semantics, but there is a clear distinction between a game, and a virtual world. A game is a focused activity that may or may not have a world built around it. A virtual world is an artificial location created for the sake of being in the location, which may or may not have anything to do in it. Disappointingly, most MMOs are built as worlds, which is bleeding into the newer RPGs.Quote:All games are just worlds with meaningless mini-games
Interestingly, City of Heroes is the least virtual-world-like MMO I've seen, though I haven't played Guild Wars. Yes, technically, you have an open world, but it's separated into zones defined by activity, and the actual game that is the G in the acronym actually takes place in out-of-world instances. It's not as "game-like" as it could be, but as MMOs go, it's about as close as it gets while still retaining a consistent world.
That's why I'd like to buy a single-player version of this game if and when it goes bust - because unlike just about any other MMO I'm aware of, City of Heroes CAN be played as a single-player game if you put your mind to it. -
Quote:Bubba, I know you get flak for posting as directly as you do sometimes, but responses like these are why I respect you. Of all the people I've seen displeased with this (and I've seen several), I think you may dislike it the most, yet handle it the best. I am impressed, sir.Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
Hopefully. Which is why I responded to him with the respect he deserves.
On the other hand, nerdraging about this issue is also silly.
If you do TF/SF's for merits, you still can. Will it be boring? Yes. But it won't last long.
If you want purple conning enemies until the devs fix this properly, run non-TF/SF content at +4/x8 diff solo.
For me? If I have to run the villain side SFs for power buffing accolades for my main brute rebuild, I'll do them. The single necessary time.
Beyond that, I will not be doing ANY TF/SFs until we are able to push our difficulties up again. -
Quote:Actually, the PPD are a perfect example of how a faction should evolve through the levels. They start out with beat cops in uniform up through the rank, proceed to undercover cops and detectives, then go up into SWAT troops. From there, they start branching out into the Hard Shells, eventually getting help from the out-and-out police robots. And when conventional arms aren't strong enough, step in the psy ops and actual Police Drones. And when even that isn't enough, Kheldians move in.Originally Posted by Sardan
I'd love Longbow to get an infusion of recostumed PPD forces. The power armor looks totally cool. When they fly they get rocket flames coming out of the bottom of their boots. Style points!
Now compare that to Longbow. They start out with men and women in tights armed with guns and progress through... Men and women in tights armed with guns. Finally, they get serious and bring out... Men and women in tights armed with guns. Seriously? Who designed these guys? It's like they just grabbed the Hero Coprs Trainers from the various zones and stores, gave them 5th Column powers and washed their hands of the whole thing.
Let's review. What do Longbow have?
Newbie: fists and handgun
Rifle
Minigun
Flamethrower
Eagle
Spec Ops
Nullifier
Officer
Rare, rare Wardens
Ballista
And that is ALL! Oh, right, there are also Sergeants and Chasers, so add two more. But, hell, the council have more CORPS of soldiers than Longbow have individual soldiers.
Could we give Longbow some kind of makeover? They're one of the most prolific enemy groups out there AND one of the least diverse. -
Quote:He's strong, but decidedly beatable. The Statesman is around on the level of enemies like Nosferatu, Silver Mantis or Valkyrie. As an elite boss, he's strong enough to be impressive, but not so strong as to be a Mary Sue.Originally Posted by Shadow State
Statesman is already stupidly overpowered, even fighting him as a Boss sucks.
-
Quote:The Sims has a point - earn money, build up with it. Second Life does not. That's the point, ironically. It's a sandbox game, and I HATE sandbox games with a passion. You could have the best sandbox game in the world, I'll still get bored with it within the span of 15 minutes. If I'll be making my own fun, I might as well shut down the game and open up Word to work on one of the myriad of pending stories.Originally Posted by Kitsune Knight
If The Sims sppeals to your love of construction and SL doesn't... you've obviously not looked much at SL SL is an entirely player constructed world. Inside of which, people have created loads of different games (including a variety of combat systems), as well as many other things.
When I say "construction," I don't mean just making stuff, I mean LITERALLY construction. A while ago I got myself a Crane Simulator game out of somewhere, and I rather enjoyed coming to an empty lot at mission 1 and leaving behind a full-size two-storey house, created piece by piece. I didn't design it, I just put the pieces together, the same thing I've been doing with Lego since I was something like 10. But always with the manual.
In fact, that's one reason I dislike base building - it's far, far, FAR too much work if I want to make something decent, adjusting little details and making minor changes. It's also why I dislike the character editor of Champions Online - it's so complicated and so involved that it turns me off. It's just too much work.
Amusingly, that's also why I gave up on the Sims. When it was one game, it was cool. When it was a few expansions, that was all right. When it was a zillion expansions, it was not cool, and now that it's per-piece micro transactions, forget about it. One of the things that's quintessential to me in any game is the actual GAME. A game that's just a world, possibly with meaningless mini-games, is not something I would call a game or something I would play. -
Quote:Well, as long as you can live with them having very limited abilities, I suppose that's not out of the question. If we DID get these things, I wouldn't expect them to be much more diverse than, say, Rikti Drones or Steel Valkyries, restricted to running around and cycling an attack or two. Since just about everything they do will have to be made from scratch, I wouldn't expect anything more.Originally Posted by Sigium
Maybe it's just an issue of agreeing to disagree, but that's not the point.
I'd still like the opportunity to see canine skeletons brought into the game.
Canine, dinosaur, bird-like, or whatever! Just something new.
One thing to note - most other MMOs have NPCs which are hideously limited in ability and variety. Each enemy will have one, maybe two abilities which it will cycle, and at most it will have a few abilities with identical animations. City of Heroes tends to make enemies which are more diverse and have a wider selection of abilities, much like the actual player characters, and while there is certainly room for single-use NPCs, I wouldn't expect them to be very prolific.
In fact, here's the perfect example - the spider skeleton. both the Arachnobots and the Tarantula use them, and they essentially only ever do two things - sort of wobble and claw strike. -
Quote:This is about the only problem I can actually see.Originally Posted by Sorciere
Well, right now, if you're solo (i.e., for the Ouroboros task forces), you don't even get bosses -- they get downgraded to lieutenants, want it or not. Upgrading foes only does so much when they don't have the hit points to live long enough to use their enhanced abilities.
I can't help but think that this change was more of a quickfix and not fully thought through.
For anything else, bah humbug. I might be more inclined to care, but I'm allergic to nerd rage. Sorry, nothing I can do about it. -
Quote:Isn't real life what we try to AVOID by playing games, though? I run into that a lot with people I know when it comes to leisurely activities, because I tend to complain about and dislike a lot of things in my games that I do every day in real life. But my response tends to be that if I wanted real life, I'd shut down my PC and walk outside. Since I'm cooped-up in here, I must want something else.Originally Posted by Megajoule
It's not the Future, though it's a decent rendition of the Metaverse for this time and tech level. Mostly what it is is a whole bunch of people stumbling around without a clue, trying to fulfill certain basic desires - companionship, money, sex. And isn't that basically what real life is?
That's what confounds me about Second Life. I can understand shipping off to a game that's vastly different than real life where I can... Well, see pretty pictures, essentially. But what is the appeal to leading, essentially, a second life inside a computer game that is essentially a mirror of the life you lead offline? I guess I could ask the same about The Sims, but at least that game is a little more goal-oriented (level up stats, progress through your job, make bigger house) so it kind of works. But I guess that appeals to my love of construction, and even that doesn't last long. -
Quote:Hmm... You know, I could see that. It might actually also go around the problem of support-only pets. For instance, say you could choose pet stance between combat and support. Selecting combat makes them fight, but they provide you with NO support, meaning you lose your shields and protections, but you gain more outgoing damage. Inversely, switching them over to support robs you of damage, but gives you back your shields and protections. I am personally not a fan of "either or" balance mechanics, but this sounds like an interesting concept, wouldn't you agree?Originally Posted by Leo_G
Or rather, similar to MM's current ability to convey pet commands, the Leader has similar commands but perhaps the ability to shift his pet abilities to different types like you said (support types, control type, etc). To keep it from being overly gamed, activating one command to switch to a given type recharges all of the switch commands.
The main reason I suggest this is because you can't customize pets. If the different types of pets looked different, players will bound to specialize their build to 1-2 types but want them to look like the 3rd/4th types. -
Quote:Yeah, I always found it a little silly that they're SO boring. They're basically the EXACT SAME ENEMIES for 50 levels. Oh, you have a few newbies who only have handguns (so, Hellions in Freedom Corps uniforms), but beyond something like level 5 or level 10, they're the same enemies. And, yes, I appreciate the fact that they get new and ever nastier powers (and Spec Ops), the fact remains that they are just boring to look at and boring to fight.Originally Posted by IanTheM1
Why I hate Longbow is because they're basically recolored Council, but with inexplicable and inexcusably high resistance to S/L damage. I'd much prefer to see more superpowered Longbow agents across all ranks, instead of just the poorly balanced bosses, and fewer guys with guns. I'd also tweak their terribly outdated descriptions/names - Nullifiers don't come even close to nullifying anything until at least level 30.
And you're right, they're a ripoff of the Council, who are a ripoff of the Column. But in the 5th Column, and even more so in the Council, that lack of variety isn't as pronounced. If we look at the 5th Column, their human soldiers do have the same powers and weapons from level 1 to level 50, but at least their appearance varies by a lot, and they have three different corps. The Council soldiers vary even more, leaving the heavier weapons for later and initially using pistols, shotguns and SMGs, moving onto miniguns, rocket launchers and super soldiers later on.
And EVEN THEN, that's only a quarter of what the Council has. Even discounting the Lucha Libre wrestlers, they still have vampires, werewolves and robots. Longbow pretty much only ever have soldiers. Ever.
Seriously, I think Longbow really need an update. Start them off on faux-hellions, move them into gun-totting soldiers, but start filtring the Wardens down in the later levels. Council spawns manage to include humans, robots, vampires and werewolves, so why can't Lingbow do that? Filter the Wardens down to lieutenant, and maybe some of the weaker ones down to minion in the 40s. Make better use of the chasers, give them some PPD-inspired power armour, give them more interesting, more futuristic weapons.
For heaven's sake! How did Arachnos end up so diverse and interesting and Longbow so BORING? OK, they're annoying because of their omnipresence, but Arachnos still has MASSIVE variety. Wolf Spiders, Crab Spiders, Bane Spiders, Arachnobots, Tarantula, Seers of the Fortunata and Mu Mystics? Oh, and Drones. Even if we condense all the Spiders into the same unit type, they still have six different types of enemies, some with a lot of variety in them. Why couldn't Longbow be made like this? Hell, even the god damn Legacy Chain is more interesting with their different elementalists.
Given how much presence they have, I REALLY think Longbow should have more variety. -
It's years-old content. No-one has been back to so much have a look at it for a long time, so his class hasn't been updated to Hero, because there was no Hero class back then.
Also, why does he have to be a hard-coded AV? Why can't he scale down to EB like all of the signature characters do when they help you? Does he really need to be so stupidly overpowered as to say "Hey, you down there! You'll never be this awesome!" I hate this old idea that our heroes were the nameless rabble that fought minor criminals and had to gang up on everything, while the Statesman was so powerful he could solo everything by himself. I much prefer the newer approach of making our characters on par with the bad guys via the AV-to-EB mechanic. -
Quote:Which, in my experience, can make up for a LOT of actual model inconsistency. It's not just about size, it's about presentation, and even though the bulkiest we can make a woman is still pretty skinny, with the right presentation we can actually mask that fact to a large extent. In fact, I've found that JUST a big, muscular man, for instance, doesn't look nearly as big as a somewhat smaller man built with sufficiently big-looking pieces.Originally Posted by Sigium
Sam, I'd like to agree with the CO Muscle slider, but in truth; the only thing that slider is is different lighting.
Here I'll have to disagree. The Champions face and body sliders are a MESS. They are confusing, they are at times triple-redundant and they are so complicated and interconnected that it's hard to predict what they'll do. City of Heroes sliders and their effects have a singularly-defined relationship - each slider combination leads to only one end appearance, and each end appearance is created by only one slider combination. In Champions, it's all over the map. Say you want to edit your arms. You have a bodymass slider which alters the size of the arms, then you have an arm size slider that alters... The size of the arms. Then you have an upper and lower arm size sliders, which alter... The size of the arms. In the exact same way, no less.Quote:I'll admit, I enjoy the body slider of CO much more than I do this game, simply because of the control it gives us over the character at hand, but that doesn't mean that it's the end-all be-all of proportions.
In fact, you can have a lot of arm size slider and a little upper and lower arm size slider, or you can have a little arm size slider and a lot of upper and lower arm size slider and the effect will be the same visually, and maybe even the same numerically. And don't even get me started on hand size and hand thickness, already buried under three layers of redundant sliders before you even start.
And compounded on top of that is the fact that the slider relationships are so complex it's actually hard to make something that actually looks good, and isn't goofy, weird or outlandish. There's no guideline as to what constitutes a "normal" body proportion, and I find myself incapable of telling, what with lacking any sort of talent and experience with the visual arts. If I'd gone on that arts class I've been meaning to, maybe I would be better able to deal with these, but the fact remains that anything I make is either bizarre, or the same body shape over and over again.
I honestly prefer the City of Heroes sliders, much as I may kick myself for saying this. At least with them almost anything you make at least looks good and you don't have to dodge concave chests or freakishly huge arms on the way to making an even decently-looking female character. And mind you, I enjoy having the weird and unusual stuff, but I happen to prefer an editor that's strong on the human form FIRST and good at weirdness only second.
Ugh... Don't remind me. You can get a little leeway with using the different facial expressions, as those change the faces significantly, but seen as how the majority of them are so goofy as to be unusable, that's not a big help. And, yeah, you're using the same face every time, there's no getting around that. No matter what you do to it, it's still the same face. I know people whined about the new faces we got in I15, but HOT DAMN were they diverse and interesting compared to that one Lara Croft face! I don't reuse faces here. I pick the one that goes the closest and edit it to look good to me. I just don't think you can make the same face look so different.Quote:After all, we still have much better faces, considering the facial sliders for Champions doesn't change the fact that you've still got the same face as the next guy, perhaps with a bit of touch-ups here and there.
All of that said, I still feel a new model for more muscular women would be sweet, but a LITTLE more slider variety and skin texture work could go a long way towards achieving the same end. -
Quote:While I agree with you completely, I think male and female bestial could be done reasonably well with swapping the running animations and possibly power animations on the current skeletons. You won't get inhumanly elongated arms, but with the right movement system, that shouldn't show.Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Plus, some new skeletons I'd like to see:
Female Huge
Male Beastial (low-hanging arms, runs on all fours)
Female Beastial (same)
Male and Female Snake Hybrids (wouldn't allow for Martial Arts to be taken, or would force the hitting animations)
Plus, some quadruped skeletons would be nice. But I'm not holding my breath on any of these.
I'll go right ahead and say that I want a new Female Huge model, myself. There really is no way to morph the current Female model into what I have in mind without destroying people's currently existing costume by altering slider effects. By "Female Huge," though, I don't mean Huge with a female head on top, I mean a taller, more masculine version of the current female model.
Now, theoretically, having a Champions-style skin muscle slider (essentially how ripped the skin texture is without altering the model) could cover probably half the ground. I remember the old bug that put the male's muscular, popping-vein biceps on the female body if you used the Cop Shirt sleeves, and that actually worked for what I had in mind, so more muscular textures could help close the gap in a BIG way. Adding either an extra muscular torso or human upper arms in the Robotic Arms category might also work, as well.
Still, a naturally larger, taller and more muscular female model would be the ideal solution.
Problem:
This isn't just down to the work involved in making a new skeleton. It also increases the cost of maintenance and development thereafter. If new animations are made, they have to be worked into four models instead of three. If new costume pieces are made, they have to fit four body structures instead of three. Both BABs and Jay have commented to this effect (if I remember right, and I may not) so my hopes for a new model are low (well, high, but I'm realistic), but I hope for a next-best-solution to do with base skin textures. And maybe giving women a naval.