Ultimo_
-
Posts
915 -
Joined
-
Quote:Or you could have chosen not to attack the character based on a miniscule amount of information. As you say, however, this is beside the point.Originally Posted by Ravenswing
You could choose not to defend the character. It's really beside the point.
Quite so, and I hope we'll eventually have to make choices like this. I mean, right now, if the villain runs away, you just chase him, blasting him the whole way (he won't even stop to fight back). Foes in the streets will eventually return to get smacked around, so you don't even HAVE to chase them. I'd just love to see a little more "comic book" in my comic book game.Quote:You're right, that's classic, and Spidey would save the people, and whether or not he also stops Electro depends on whether the storyline is about to end, or he should escape this time. Narrative Imperative has at least as much to do with character decisions in a comic book as any other factor.
I'll check that out!Quote:Actually, it's the entire premise of the film Equillibrium. All emotions are supressed by a drug. There is no more war, or murder... but there is killing, lots of it. 'Feeling' is a crime punishable by death. If you want to feel anything you risk being gunned down or incinerated.
Quote:One of our GG roleplayer, Zortel, created Unity Earth. It's a world where everyone is essentially controlled by an alternate-Earth version of one of her characters (Zortel, actually). It's interesting to see the range of reactions to it portrayed by people's characters. -
Quote:It does depend on how common the situation is, and how greatly the lack of it affects you.Originally Posted by Garent
You posit: a situational ability goes against its general principle if the user is not in that situation
I posit: A situational ability by definition is only usable/useful in certain situations. If it works all the time then it's not situational.
Conclusion: I think what you mean is "situational abilities suck". -
Quote:Actually, it kind of resembles the argument in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (my favourite book, if you've never read it, I highly recommend it).Originally Posted by Lucretia_MacEvil
The kind of dilemma presented in the OP is staggering. I agree with many other posters in this thread that a suppression of one emotional aspect of humanity (or all of them) would be extremely disastrous. If someone were to, say, get rid of all hate in the universe, then you might as well get rid of love too, since it's hate's opposite. There's two sides to every coin, here, and it's impossible to have one side without the other. Even a Mobius strip has an inside and an outside (the empty space surrounded by the "ring" it creates, and the empty space which surrounds the "ring" itself).
I also believe that trying to "program thoughts out" wouldn't really work, since your mind would ultimately realize that something was wrong and actively fight against it (whether that fight is consicous or subconscious depends on if the individual knows what the "programmer" is doing). Such a fight would lead to either the overthrow of the programming (if the fight was sucessful), mass insanity (if the program couldn't be overwhelmed, and minds destroyed themselves), or no thought whatsoever (if the programmer tried this to prevent failure/resistance).
This leads to another question; if a person was born within a mentally programmed society, would they have the same issues as those who were not? All it takes to realize that something isn't normal is to compare it to that mind's definition of "normal". For a child born into a programmed society, the programming would be normal and familiar. They would probably be afraid of not having it, since people generally fear the unfamiliar. This is a good point in Facade's favor, since he would only have to maintain the program long enough for those who were born without it to die (probably not even that long, since those who were very young when it started would forget that things were ever different).
I'll probably spend a considerable amount of time in the next few days thinking of a counter for this point. The simplest one I can currently think of is that imposing such a system is morally ambiguous at best, and downright evil and self-serving at worst. That's a big range, and it depends on the reaction of the society that such programming was imposed upon.
I just realized that I left out those who wouldn't be affected by the psychic program that Facade has in mind. Due to their high potential for disruption, they would eventually have to be eliminated completely, unless Facade found a way to control them as well. In such a system, an individual would have to be controlled or eliminated in order to protect the system. Without such protocols in place, the system would ultimately fail.
I know this post is already super long, but I have one more question: Besides having discussions like this one, what does someone do with a degree in philosophy? What kind of jobs are out there for a philosophy major? I'm just wondering.
I am a philosophy grad. I'm currently studying Psychology, because I've gone unemployed for about 8 years...
(In fairness, I took philosophy as preparation for law school, but then decided not to get into law...) -
Quote:Well, you're going to criticize me about the character's conception, then I have to elaborate somewhat to defend myself from the criticism.Originally Posted by Ravenswing
No, there really isn't a need for that, or a point in doing so.
As far as moral dileemas goes, even something as classic as being made to choose between stopping the villain and stopping a disaster.
Spiderman has Electro on the ropes, so he blasts a railway line as a train is coming. Now Spidey has to decide - do I save the train or stop Electro?
It's a classic thing, and things like this might add a wrinkle to fights. Actually, I always thought this is the kind of thing that should have been balancing the villains against us, rather than extravagant attributes (30 times our health, 10 times our damage, etc.). -
First off, I should clarify Facade. He's not better than everyone else. Being able to distribute his mass and alter its properties allows him to be pretty powerful, but there are limits. He has to be able to figure out how to do it, mechanically. He can do wings that work, because he understands lift and weight ratios, and he knows how the muscles would have to be arranged. He can't do Optic Blasts, however, because he doesn't know how to make them work.
In the story where he nearly beat the Avengers, he did it largely by subterfuge. By masquerading as Jarvis, he got the drop on Cap and many of the others, and with his enhanced abilities, he was able to easily overcome them. Iron Man and some of the others required more creative methods, and he simply couldn't overpower Thor. In the end of the story, Wonder Man escaped and freed the other Avengers, and Facade was forced to flee.
As far as the premise of the thread goes (that is, the moral dilemma), I wish there had been this much discussion when I originally posted it! Some neat comments!
I wish the game allowed us to wrestle with some moral dilemmas (dilemmae?). -
Quote:Maybe one day we'll get personal apartments...?!Originally Posted by Golden Girl
I thought we were talking about mission maps, not the actual zone buildings?
but the zone buildings are slowly being opened up anyway - first there were stores, then they've added WW, the Vanguard offices, and AE buildings - there are now way more usable buildings than before. -
Quote:The trouble with situational offense or defense is that it runs afoul of the general principle when the character isn't in that situation. This is precisely the situation Defenders are in.Originally Posted by Garent
Balance doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) so linear. You can make the gameplay experience more varied by doing things such as giving a character type an average defense but instead of giving them an average offense to match it you give them a low offense in a certain situation and a high offense in other situations.
-
Quote:A terrible character? You're suggesting I'm immature creating a character with an interesting ability and a moral dilemma? Your tone is insulting.Originally Posted by Ravenswing
Anyone who does not understand why it's a bad idea already, is never going to understand why it's a bad idea. No amount of argument will convince them. Frankly, it's a value judgement: which is more important, a perfect society or free will? Our world has, in many ways, already decided that it would prefer the perfect society.
Charles should zap Fascade's brain, eliminating his telepathic abilty and, preferably, rendering him a cabbage. He's a terrible character, the kind of thing your average 10 year-old makes up because he has to have the best there is. For that reason alone, Charles should ensure that he never gets to carry out his diabolical plans. Let's face it, all the other Marvel heroes would be happy to see the back of him.
Also, you're suggesting Xavier should do exactly what Facade is wondering about, playing god with someone's brain. I suspect you've missed the point. -
From the Illuminati:
X: I do not reach into people's minds and change them.
X: If I did, mutants would be the dominant social and political force on the planet. My students would not be hunted and despised by society for the crime of being different. Mutant would be the norm.
X: The human mind is not a computer. You can't just turn it on and off and type in and tell it exactly what to do.
Reed: Why not?
X: because it's an organism. It's an organism designed to produce free will. It remembers what it is and how it got to where it is. Sure, I could suggest a small thing, like having someone not see me as I walk by, but...
X: If I reached into your brain and told you to wear a dress and call yourself "Sally"--yes you would do it. But eventually, over time, your mind would find a way to work against that which, in your case, it knew to be false.
X: And if it couldn't... it might find a way to do something to hurt you or others... It would react.
X: Plus--if I did do this... there's a moral line that is being crossed that we could not come back from.
Based on this dialogue, it would seem Xavier has thought of doing what Facade has suggested, and has discovered that it wouldn't work for the reasons he outlines.
Kind of interesting! -
Way back in the old days, we DID have games that went on forever (as long as you had the skill and patience). Examples include Pong, Pac-Man, Gorf, and so on...
-
Quote:It's the get knocked down then stand up again animation that is activating. The midair flipping around still happens, but occasionally I fall down as if I were on the ground.Originally Posted by GlaziusF
Haven't played a flier in a while, have you? They've been getting knocked around for a couple issues now.
Most notably, the in-place backflip you do when you're hovering was retweaked so it imposes a significant animation-type delay to activating other powers. Less than the one you get when you get knocked down but you get up again, but still noticeable. -
A little bit of necroposting, but I recently picked up the Avengers Illuminati collection and noticed Xavier actually answers this for Tony Stark...
I'm not at home now, I'll post his rationale when I get home. -
Quote:The difference with your first two examples is that they affect others. The latter one does not. If what someone is doing doesn't affect me, and they're enjoying it, why should they be denied it?Originally Posted by MaestroMavius
I always hear this arguement of "It's my $15 let me play the way I want"
Well, there is a problem with that logic.
It's my $15.00, I enjoy griefing others so I should be allowed to!
It's my $15.00, I find making racist remarks fun so I should be allowed to!
It's my $15.00, I enjoy racing through levels at breakneck speed so I should be allowed to.
None of those would be considered 'ok' so why should the AE building be allowed to devolve into a PL hotspot? Because you pay your $15.00 and enjoy powerleveling?
Nope, sorry, that excuse don't fly round here.
The devs have stated on numerous occasions that this game wasn't meant to be played like that. Why would they want everyone to be able to burn through all the content in less than a month?
Oh, wait, they don't.
/Endrant -
Quote:Ah, the joy of anonymous reputation slagging (even though I have rep turned OFF).
you have said before, and you were equally wrong then
It's a simple balance paradigm. You have to balance offense and defense. High offense means low defense. Low offense means high defense. The precise mechanisms are irrelevant, it's a general principle of game balance. I wasn't wrong then, and I'm not wrong now. -
As I said, I'm not a farmer, and my AE missions are not farms. Even so, I have been heavily penalized by the changes to the system.
As I said, they're trying to kill a fly with a shotgun. It's an overreaction. -
Something I noticed, is that I periodically get knocked down while hovering or flying. That's right, I'm in the air and get hit by a knockback/down effect and fall onto an invisible floor several feet above the actual floor...
The AE nerf is too invasive. In the effort to stop the farming, they've crippled the whole system. The baby is out with the bathwater.
That said, while I understand the desire to stop the farming, I also don't see why there's quite so much hate. I mean, I'm not a farmer, but it seems to me that the point of the game is to have fun. If people are having fun farming, what's the harm? Yes, I know some of the harm (fewer groups, braindead L50s asking what an Enhancement is for, etc...).
It just seems to me that the real problem isn't the farming, it's that they prefer farming to the alternative. That is, WHY are people farming? Rather than making farming undesirable, how about making the rest of the game MORE desirable? -
I have a character (a couple, actually) that are former Nazi agents (they're villains, obviously). I'd love to be able to align villain characters with existing villain groups. It makes no sense for Die Grausigkeit to be battling the 5th Column, he should be working with them!
-
Quote:Except that the Defender would have half the damage output of the Scrappers. I've said it before, they need to have damage output or personal survivability (through whatever means). Right now, they have neither (in general, there are sets that perform better than others).Originally Posted by JusticeZero
Oh, this rubbish again? You do realize that if we could do this that it would be like the prenerf Regen Scrappers again, right? Imagine a bunch of people running around with regen similar to Regen's panic button, 24/7; more defense than a SR scrapper; endless endurance, full mez protection, and the ability to more or less use their Tier 9 Nuke as a part of their standard attack chain? Because that's what a self-buffing Empath can pull off.
-
Aha, this could explain why my custom soldiers are producing 0xp. So much for being able to customize power choices.
By taking out Slug and replacing it with Full Auto, I've apparently somehow neutered my soldiers, making them too weak to be worth xp?
Do these Devs actually THINK about things before they change them? -
The Farms also take away players that might otherwise be teaming. It's been a real pain trying to find non-farm teams and just as hard to recruit players to teams.
The thing is, it seems to me the devs have simply undone many of the actions taken to suppress the farms.
So, first I go to allow bosses in my solo missions, and up my general difficulty to maximum.
Second, I create a mission using custom foes, all of which have all the powers (meaning full xp).
Third, I take out their ranged attacks (all will be meleeists, so they should only have 1 or 2).
Fourth, I hover over them and farm xp.
Short-sighted. -
Well, I'm not a farmer, and I make my arcs with an actual eye to balance. Unfortunately, the changes have taken literally ALL the experience out of the arcs.
The arc in my sig, for example, uses ONLY custom characters.
The minions have machine guns. It made no sense that the machine guns should be firing slugs or grenades, so I used the custom powers to remove Slug and replaced it with Full Auto. I gave them Regeneration as a secondary set, because it provided minimal actual defenses (which is in keeping with the fact that they're WW2 soldiers).
They now generate 0xp
Further, because I have to add bosses to the group, I'm using more memory for the WW2 soldier group, making it harder to fit the content in the mission. As it is, I was forced to remove the Russians from the final mission in Berlin (which is historically inaccurate) because I couldn't fit them in there with the memory restrictions.
Now, I'll still play my own arcs because I enjoy them, but I don't expect to play them much, and I don't expect anyone else to play them now.
I was behind REDUCING xp benefits on weaker foes, but this has gone too far. This won't just kill farming, it will kill the AE as a whole. -
Quote:Don't kid yourself.
**Only Chuck Norris can hit L51.**
You know he was BORN at L56...
(Yes, I just made a Chuck Norris joke. God help me.) -
Quote:(You're missing the joke...)Originally Posted by Neutrino_Siphon
Tankers need attacks to be useful, IMO. A non-attacking Tank in my team is just wasted bandwith, also IMO.
-
Quote:No, because Tankers don't need attacks, just Taunt...Originally Posted by Neutrino_Siphon
No KO Blow?
Lolzufail. -
Sheesh, this is turning into Star Wars Galaxies.