Ultimo_
-
Posts
915 -
Joined
-
Quote:First of all, I wasn't suggesting hard numbers, I was just shooting for ballpark numbers to illustrate my point. I figured people were smart enough to know what I meant without having to look up the actual numbers. You may notice that I did provide the actual numbers when requested (you'll also notice my ballpark numbers weren't so far off the actual ones).Originally Posted by Arondell
Ok....This is one of the big problems with how you try to make your point. In this case you made an assertion regarding Force Field that anyone with even a small familiarity with the set knew beyond any doubt was wrong. Saying such things regarding the factual aspects of your argument hurts the credibility of the opinion parts of your argument.
What your suggesting Defenders become sounds a great deal like what Corrupters already are. To make these changes your going to have to convince the devs that Defenders as they stand right now are broken. To do that your going to have to do more then convince people that what you want would be better. Your going to have to convince people that what is out there right now isn't, reasonably, playable. So far you haven't convinced me of the "better" aspect of why this should be done.
Defenders wouldn't be more like Corruptors since Force Fields aren't avaialable to Corruptors. Further, Corruptors would still do more damage.
I don't have to convince anyone of anything. Anything I've said here is merely my opinion, as solicited by the thread. I suspect you're trying to carry on an argument from a different thread. -
Quote:I didn't have Mids running, I just picked numbers out of the air.Originally Posted by Arondell
How are you slotting that your only getting 30% defense between the individual shields and Dispersion Field? With good slotting you should be getting right around 40%. Throw in a properly slotted Maneuvers and you should be hitting 45% which is the soft cap for defense. Personal Force Field is 75% not 90% and is generally considered to be overkill for defense unless your facing something that has a big accuracy bonus. (e.g. DE eminators or Rularru Eyeballs) Less health is fairly academic when only around 5% of most incoming damage is actually hitting. So basically you get a character that can floor all enemies chance of hitting you while still fighting back. Basically like having PFF except without the disadvantages. Also without counting in any IO sets yet. So yeah I'm seeing a tank mage in the making.
This would also require a fundamental remaking of how the small shields function since you can't target yourself and getting that much defense for yourself for a paltry 7.8 endurance every 4 minutes would be very broken balance wise. Most defenses on that level are toggles.
Sounds like a lot of work for something I'm fairly sure the devs wouldn't agree with.
If you want the numbers from Mids, however...
PFF generates 117% Defense fully slotted (3 slots)
The Deflection/Insulation Shields generate 23.4%
The DIspersion Bubble generates 15.6%
If the Defender could use these powers on himself, he'd have 39% Defense.
Compare to the SR Scrapper
Focused Fighting/Focused Senses/Evasion are 21.6% Defense each
Agile/Lucky are 8.78%
The Scrapper thus has 30.4% Defense overall.
However, he also has more than 300 health more than the Defender, and does twice the damage (meaning he uses half the endurance).
Now, as I say, if that 39% is deemed to be too high, then adjust the powers to compensate. I'm not sure what the numbers would look like for adjusted shields, but it seems to me it shouldn't be terribly big. As I said before, the Defender is paying for higher defense by having less offense. My original idea of dropping the shields by 5% should be sufficient.
Again, if he was able to have that level of defense AND high offense, then he'd be a tank mage. Since he has high defense and low offense, he's not a tank mage.
However, you do make a good point, that most defenses on that level are toggles. Perhaps the trick would be to synchronize the recharge and the endurance cost to compensate. -
Quote:It wouldn't make them into tanks, they would have less health, less damage and no taunt effect (unless they use presence).Originally Posted by Arondell
So you want to turn the force field defender into a defense based tank? Also how would this not make Personal Force Field pointless? It will allow a force field defender to easily soft cap defense.
Oh and the whole thing about many of the defender buffs being ally only is a long standing developer policy. It won't change without a total redesign of most of the sets. Most likely making all those nice ally only buffs less powerful so as to not allow tank magery.
It wouldn't make PFF pointless, since you would still be getting hit. 30% Defense does not equal 90%Defense.
Again, I don't see how it's unbalanced to let a Defender have the same Defense as others. That is, if I'm playing with a SR Scrapper, and use my shields on him, he's at maximum Defense. I'm only asking that I be able to buff myself to the same degree as I can buff others. It's the old system - low offense means high defense. FF Defenders can't boost their own damage, so it makes sense for them to have higher defense. As I say, if the buff is too high, reduce it a tad. Fully slotted, the shields are 23%. With Dispersion Bubble (15%), that's a total of 38%. That's slightly better than an equivalent SR Scrapper (30%), but the Scrapper has more health and does GREATLY more damage. If this is still considered unbalanced, reduce the shields to around 15%, that way they'll have the same 30% as the Scrapper, and still do less damage and have less health. More, it would provide a bit more reason for having two FF (or other Def based) Defenders.
Having good defenses and minimal offense isn't tank magery. -
Quote:I suppose that's true. I guess it is about the same damage as the Energy Torrent...Originally Posted by Umbral_NA
First off, it's an AoE. It's going to deal less damage than a single target attack. Interestingly enough, it's actually more damage than any comparable attack that Defenders have available from their secondaries. Plus, it's not target capped. It will attack every single target in the area of effect. I can't recall any other powers off the top of my head that are still like that (though I believe there is at least 1 other...). And it's got knockdown and a decent chance for a mag 2 stun. And it's got the 1.2 inherent power accuracy modifier. It's pretty much the omni-attack. Respectable damage, unlimited targets, large area, multiple control effects, and high accuracy (especially for an AoE). The only real problem that I've ever had with it is the fact that it's got a 30 second recharge. If that could be shortened a bit (to 20 seconds), I wouldn't mind in the least.
(which has a 12 second recharge and a short animation) -
Quote:I could get into that, but I'd add one thought, which I've also suggested regarding Masterminds. Right now, the MM buffs all his bots at once, and it uses a LOT of endurance, no matter how many bots are buffed. If it cost endurance on a per person basis, then that would be fine.Originally Posted by Obscure_Blade
I like that idea, but ONLY for Defenders ( and Corruptors if/when they get FF ). It would be overpowered for Masterminds and Controllers I think, especially the former. I think that for Defenders & Corruptors in general many team buffs should be redesigned to be more useful solo.
My own idea, and one that should extend to Masterminds and Controllers as well as Defenders is to give the two single target bubbles the Mastermind Upgrade treatment. Up their endurance cost and turn them into AoE buffs that bubble everyone in range at once. It wouldn't be imbalancing, since a FF user can already bubble everyone on a team. It would simply reduce the tedium of being a buffbot. And it meshes well with your own suggestion; just include the user in the list of targets affected by the buff.
For example (and I don't have mids open, so these are jsut example numbers):
Say casting Deflection Shield costs 5 endurance presently. Raise that to 8 Endurance, and have it affect all targets in a radius. Thus, on a team of 8, it would use 64 endurance for the Deflection Shield. On a team of 4 it would use 32. For the solo Defender, it would use 8.
In this case, you could also increase the recharge time.
As for the effect, again, I don't have numbers handy, but say they presently generate 20% Defense. To compensate for the Defender being able to use it himself, reduce it to 15%. -
Sure, I'll bite.
Personal Force Field - The only thing about it I don't like is that you can't rest with it on. Perhaps this is a balance thing, but it doesn't strike me as very entertaining to get beaten down to red, PFF and leave the game for 10 minutes while you heal (because Rest hasn't recharged yet - a very common problem for Defenders). Other than this, It's fine as is.
Deflection/Insulation Shield - These are the core shield powers in the set, and like similar powers in other sets, the Defender can't use them on himself. To me, this is both unrealistic and horribly limiting, as it renders us the least defended character on any team, and practically defenseless solo. My solution is to make them useful to the solo Defender. This may sound unbalanced, but I don't see it as such. If it's not unbalanced for the Defender to add 40% Defense to a teammate, why is it unbalanced for him to add it to himself (especially when you consider that the teammate ALREADY has personal Defenses)? I'd be willing to allow for a slight reduction in power to accomodate this.
Force Bolt - It's a decent power as is, my only real complaint is that it does no damage to speak of. I'd like to see it do some damage (I'm reminded of fighting Force Magi who cast a Force Bolt that does sizable damage).
Detention Field - These powers tend to be more of an annoyance than anything. Making the enemy in the DF untargetable would be a big help. A more obvious bubble would also help.
Dispersion Bubble - This is fine as is, however, if the adjustments to DS/IS I suggested above are not to be used, then perhaps increasing the Defense of the DB while reducing the Defense of the DS/IS to compensate might be allowed. The total Defense for teammates would be the same, and it would make the solo Defender more survivable.
Repulsion Field - I've only noted two issues with this power. First, it is rather endurance heavy. Second it is of limited value. Foes frequently push in and one-shot me despite the field. Hover provides better protection for less endurance. I'm not entirely sure what I'd do with it, though.
Repulsion Bomb - This is the only credible attack in the set, and it only does as much damage as Power Bolts, a tier 1 attack. The damage should be increased, I would say double should be sufficient. The animation is a trifle long. Other than that it's fine as is.
Force Bubble - I haven't reached this yet, nor have I ever seen it used, so I can't comment on it. -
The closest I've come so far was to create a group consisting only of EB/AV characters, then use that as an ambush, or other similar feature.
For instance, if the Doom Lords consist of 7 EBs, including Catburglar, Armoron, Hurricane and Black Ghost, then by selecting "Fight a Boss" and choosing Black Ghost, then selecting the group he's with as "Doom Lords" he'll be surrounded by other EBs.
The only problem is that you occasionally get multiple copies of the same villain. -
I've not played a Corruptor much (though my first character waaaaay back when I was on a free trial was a Corruptor), but they strike me as being much like a Defender, but reversed. That is, Defenders are more defensive, Corruptors are more offensive.
Thus, I would expect Defenders to have better defenses (personal and otherwise) while I would expect Corruptors to have higher offense.
Not saying this is the way it is, just that this is how it seems to me. -
Yep, just like PvP and power customization.
Oh, wait a minute.... -
Yeah, I was thinking in terms of WW2 imagery, too. I tried all sorts of variations on firebomb, pyre and pyro, heat, and so on.
Tried Human Blaze (though I figured it would be genericed before long), but it was ALSO taken.
Anyway, thanks for the replies! -
Aha! Nevrmind, Firestarter was available, so I used that.
-
I've been trying to come up with a name for a new character, but I'm having a tremendous amount of difficulty.
He's a Fire/Fire Blaster, based loosely on the original Human Torch. I originally wanted to call him Inferno, but that was taken, naturally. Thus, I began trying alternatives. I've been using an online thesaurus, and even have used a small L in place of a capital I for words like Inferno, but literally everything I have tried is unavailable.
Has anyone any suggestions that might take me in a different direction?
I've tried variations of Pyre/Fire/Burn/Blaze/Inferno/Ember/Heat/etc. but any suggestions are welcome. It's becoming intensely frustrating after two days of searching for a name. -
Quote:It would depend on the Defender. As I say, you either have to have offense or defense, or a balance of the two. If they don't have the damage to defeat a foe quickly, they need to have the ability to survive long enough to defeat the foe slowly. More hit points would help that. In this light, Defenders should have more health than Corruptors because Corruptors have more offense (and therefore less need for more health).Originally Posted by Jade_Dragon
It would be more logical to give Defenders Corruptor level hit points, and Corruptors Blaster level hit points. Corruptors have HP between Defenders and Blasters, and the same as Khelidans and SoA.
I don't believe more hit points will really help Defenders in the area in which they need it, however, which is in defeating a foe quickly if they have no means of boosting damage. -
I have to say, I've been enjoying my FF/Nrg Defender, but be ready for the first few levels to be kind of painful. Mine is L30 now, and he's really starting to round into shape. Still does dismal damage, but he's finally getting some decent mitigation now.
You'll notice the change around the time you get SOs.
Use the second build slot for a team build. -
Well.
Issues with Defenders as I see them...
1) Damage is lower (in general), so it takes more time and more endurance to defeat a foe.
2) Defenses are lower (for some), so they suffer more damage in a fight, because they need more time as noted above.
3) Vigilance is a laugable waste of time.
The basic rule is that a character must have decent offense (defeat foes before suffering too much damage - Blasters), decent defenses (withstand damage, giving them time to defeat foes - Tankers), or a balance of the two (Scrappers).
Defenders are all over the place with this.
Some sets have the tools to provide extra offense (such as Kinetics), so a universal damage boost might be unbalancing to these kinds of sets.
Some sets have ample mitigation tools (such as Dark), so broad changes to the defensive aspect of the class might be unbalancing to these sets.
That leaves Vigilance.
What I would do:
1) a SMALL boost to damage, from the 0.65 it currently is, to 0.75. I can't speak to Corruptors, but if they're supposed to have higher damage, even BEFORE Scourge, then give them 0.8 or 0.85.
2) a boost to health, to Blaster levels. Scrappers need more because they're in melee, so that's more than Defenders need. Controllers need less to balance their highly defensive powers.
3) a revamp of Vigilance. I'm not sure what I would change it to, but something has to be done.
4) a GLOBAL (that is, all ATs and power sets) equalization of endurance cost. If my Power Bolts are going to do half as much damage as the Blaster's Power Bolts, it should cost half as much endurance, too. This would also alleiviate issues with endurance many Tankers currently suffer. Note, things like Fury shouldn't affect this. A power would cost the same amount of endurance, regardless of buffing effects like Build Up, Fury, and so on.
I'll try to stay out of this now, lest this become another shouting match. -
Quote:Indeed, but you never know. They may change their minds if people present a cogent reason for it.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
The devs have said things will never happen because they couldn't do it due to manpower of coding restrictions that they found ways around.
In this case they said it will never happen because they don't want to do it.
Big difference. -
Quote:Badges don't generally affect gameplay, so the idea that they're unbalancing can only relate to accolades, which are avaiable to everyone.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
It makes certain badges too easy to get. It was never intended for any one character to obtain every single badge in the game.
Sure, some people have ALMOST all of them, but they had to go to ridiculous lengths to get some of them.
A scrapper will never get the healing badges as fast as an Empath will. On the reverse, an Empath won't get the damage badges as fast as a Regen can get them. Being able to switch your AT and powerset would make that system exploitable, which it currently is not. Trust me, hardcore badge collectors all over the place would use this feature for exactly that.
And you are still ignoring the fact that the devs have said it is never going to happen. They didn't say it was too difficult, they didn't say it was too time consuming, they said "We're not going to do it, because it would be unbalancing."
It's not a matter of them not having the manpower or the ability to implement this. It's a matter of they just plain don't want to do it. And I seriously doubt the extreme minority of people that are asking for it are going to change their minds.
A suggestion is exactly that, a suggestion. No group of players, no matter how large, has any authority to tell the devs what to put in the game. If they have looked at this thread, they have seen a few people in favor of it, and a significant number more against it. The forums, while not showing the opinion of every player in the game, are a decent cross section, and I'd be willing to bet that the percentages for and against would be about the same. I highly doubt the devs will implement something they see as unbalancing to please 5 or 10% of the playerbase.
The Devs say it will never happen, but they've said the same thing before and changed their minds. All we can do is put it out there and see what happens.
5 or 10% of the playerbase still deserves attention, especially if it's not going to hinder anyone else. Consider that PvPers represent a very small portion of the playerbase, yet PvP was implemented and continues to be maintained. -
Quote:The problem with rolling an alt, as has been mentioned, is that it's not the same character and the loss of badges, accolades, and so on.Originally Posted by Prof_Backfire
If you're gonna have a 'restart from level 1' respec... you might as well just roll an alt.
Face it, powerset respecs are a terrible idea, they're not happening.
The point I'm making is that it's not going to hurt anything (respeccing to L1 in a new AT or power set), so why NOT allow it? -
Quote:As I mentioned, just saying "NO" (or the infamous "/jranger") is also against forum rules.Originally Posted by Masterdevil
But just saying NO (as it has been the case multiple times on first page) is not? Suuuure man.
I love how the thread has evolved so far, the pros to this suggestions outweighting the cons by FAR (because the cons are pretty much inexistant).
Really, everything that has been said AGAINST this suggestion so far has this sweet little touch of *I've rolled so many alts I dont want you to be able to keep your badges on a new set/AT".
Which is kinda sad... big deal, my main and only char will just cover up in dust again on an inactive account waiting for them to deliver a new content patch which might inspire me to reactivate it again... or not.
I think your interpretation is a little uncharitable. I can easily see how a basic respec (ie. L50 to L50) could be abused. Consider, Blasters tend to perform very well early, and get "weaker" as the get to higher level (I say this because as the character levels, he's going to face more powerful/resistant foes, and more mezzes and such) while Tankers start fairly weak and become very strong later on. If they could respec AT without losing level, they could start as a Blaster, breeze through the first few levels and then become a Tanker for the late game. This would be an exploit, and would unbalance the game as a whole.
As I say, it seems to me the best way to do it would be to allow us to respec AT with a drop to L1 (essentially the same as making an alt).
Switching power sets within an AT might not need to have a total loss of level, however, since an AT performs approximately the same way regardles of power set. Certainly, when nerw power sets are made available, it might be a good idea to allow a total respec into the new set with no loss of level (for example, the original concept of the Canadian Shield had him using a shield. At the time I created the CoH character, there was no shield set, so I made him with Invulnerablility. When they made the Shield Defense set, it would have been nice to give a free respec to the new set since it wasn't available before).
Anyway, it's something I'm thinking about. -
Quote:No sweat.Originally Posted by Hero_of_Steel
Ultimo, I had missed the post where you were advocating resetting the character to lvl 1; in that case the lockout periods can be lifted & the restriction against changing to a different AT can also be lifted.
The restrictions (as I described earlier) should only be used in cases where the character would be retaining the levels they had earned.
My concern was to maintint the contiguity of the character, retention of badges and accolades (since some are irreplacable), retention of SG status, retention of the friends list, and so on.
While it would certainly be nice to be able to respec from (for example) a L50 Blaster to a L50 Tanker, I can certainly see why this would not be desirable.
I'm not sure the same reasoning can be applied to the switching of power sets, however.
Without a doubt, many sets operate somewhat differently within an AT (eg. Fire and Invulnerability operate rather differently for tankers), but the general play of any AT will be very similar. I wonder if a mechanism might not be devised to allow players to switch power sets with some retention of level? -
Quote:While this is true, respeccing from a L50 Blaster to a L1 Tanker souldn't be any different from making an alt (except that you would keep badges, SG affiliation and contribution, friends, etc.).Originally Posted by Hero_of_Steel
Knowledge of playing one AT does not translate into playing a completely different AT.
Again, I don't see how respeccing to L1 would be any different.Quote:The lockout period is to encourage players to create alts to support teaming at the low levels & to provide a period of exclusivity with the set.
If you do not want to do that, you would have to wait for the lockout period to be over (one year), then you can have your character (whatever level it may be) switch into this new powerset.
This is true, but only to a point. Regular respecs can completely change a character's powers and pools, vastly changing his strengths and weaknesses. Besides, if a L40 character is having trouble with Toxic foes, respeccing to L1 in a different AT or power set sure won't help. Either way, making them hard to attain (ie as a reward for a Task Force or something) would control this, I think.Quote:With regular respecs the strengths & weakness of your character doesnt change, with a powerset respec you are capable of changing to a powerset that can cope better against a foe that your previous powerset had problems with.
(I.e. If you are fighting something that deals a lot of toxic damage & you are currently having trouble with that, you would switch to a set that has strong resists/defense against it)
By not allowing rapid switching you prevent potential abuses of the system & it forces the player to think long term about what they are going to do with the character, instead of planning only as far as the current mission.
As long as they're ALSO attainable through gameplay, as regular respecs are, then I would have no real trouble with them also being purchasable. I think $24 is too steep, but that's a matter of opinion. $9 is plenty expensive for anything that isn't an expansion.Quote:If the regular respec is $9.99, then a service that is more beneficial to you (it does above & beyond what a regular respec can do for you) should not be the same price.
Thanks for the explanation! -
Could you explain the reasons for these restrictions?
I can understand some of the reasoning, let me see now...
1) I'm not sure of this one. Personally, I don't see what the harm would be in letting people switch ATs. For example, my namesake character, Ultimo, sits on the sever pretty much unplayed because he's a Blaster, and is no fun to play anymore (I really don't like the Blaster squishie playstyle). If I could make him into a Tanker, I would definitely play him again.
2) I expect this is to promote new characters, but also to promote players gathering experience with the set? As I say, if the Respec makes the player restart at L1, then there's no difference to rerolling, so again, I don't see the need for this. Was there another reason?
3) Presumably, this is to prevent repeated switching. It's not necessary for regular respecs, so I don't see it being necessary for Powerset or AT respecs either.
4) Again, this is presumably to discourage people using the respecs. I don't know that you want to penalize your players, however, by discouraging any feature of the game.
Could you elaborate further? -
Quote:Originally Posted by PKDauntless
I never said "It won't work because it is hard." What I said was "I don't think it's a good use of resources because it's hard and there's already something that does this." If you don't agree that rolling an alt is the same thing as rerolling a main at level one with a new archetype and powers, that's fine. We can disagree and I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Indeed, well said.
Again, well said.Quote:Which is the part I thought I was communicating in my original reply. I see now where I made my mistake. I don't believe the idea is worth doing because I don't believe it would anything worthwhile (new) to the game. I do not have any numbers as to the percentage of people who might or might not use this new system proposed. Anything I, you, or anyone else here could say would be anecdotal. So I cannot say, for certain, that it would be a waste of resources. I can say I think, with my limited information, in my humble opinion, that it would not be a good investment of programming/testing resources.
A valid point, but I don't think it invalidates my point. It's simply an illustration that the final arbiter of what's worth development time is the devs themselves. We can only tell them things we might like to see and let them decide.Quote:PvP was added to a game that had no PvP. But this game already has both respecs and alts. It's a minor quibble with your example, but do continue.
Nice to see someone that can disagree without being disagreeable!Quote:Thus this is where any meaningful discussion must end. I respect your opinion although I do not share it.
I understand your point, but will say this for completeness. For some of us, our characters exist as more than merely data. The contiguity of their existence is what defines them. That is, were I to delete the original character and start fresh, it would no longer be the same character, it would be a copy, simply because one existence ended and a new one began.Quote:And here's the largest point of contention in the discussion from my point of view. I exist in the real world. I was born of two parents. I have a physical form, a mind and personality, I have a legal standing in my community as an adult human, and the preachers on TV tell me I have a soul. For all intents and purposes, I am real. A clone of me would be a copy.
My character Battalion is not real. He is a collections of binary bytes maintained in a computer database. He was not born. He has no form beyond the game. And the only reality he has is what's afforded to him via my own imagination. Without me, Battalion doesn't exist. A clone of Battalion can be Battalion if I decide, in my imagination, that he is Battalion. He doesn't need the badges, the influence, the prestige, the same name... because my imagination is what makes him real to me. So Battalion might be called Battalion Justice when he swings a sword and Justice Majori when he's a Kheldian Peacebringer and is still Battalion when he ventures into the strange alternate reality known as Pinnacle Server. His story continues because I choose for it to.
This is why I don't see the need for a full AT/powerset respec to continue a character when I can simply roll an alt and use my imagination. You obviously disagree and you are welcome to that opinion.
It may seem semantic and irrelevant, but we each have our own way.
My respect, sir. -
Quote:I didn't ignore your points, I just don't find them valid. Not because I don't like them, I have actual reasons.Originally Posted by PKDauntless
The "I'm going to ignore everyone's points because I want a pony" argument doesn't hold weight either but you keep throwing it out. Changing the AT or Powersets of a toon requires changes to the underlying data in the database.
Changing ANYTHING will require work. The question of whether it's too much work can't be answered by you or I, that's why I feel it carries no weight. Even assuming it IS a "lot" of work, there's still the question of whether it is "worth" doing that much work.
I have no doubt you know much, much more about how databases work, and how programming works, and all of that. However, unless you have access to the code for THIS game, you're still only speculating (as you say). However, the issue isn't how much work it might or might not require, it's whether or not the idea is worth whatever amount of work IS involved.Quote:If the game is designed following a normalization plan for the databases, that could be only a handful of places. You have to redesign the respec interface to provide the UI for the changes as well as making the changes properly to the database. You have to code in some methods to make sure nothing that's supposed to be kept isn't lost. Finally, you have to test this against a normal respec, a change from one powerset to another, changing both powersets, changing the AT, how it plays at low levels, how it plays in PvP, what happens after a database rollback, what happens if you get a system error during the change.... And something will still likely be missed that the beta testers find and report. (Or keep quiet for exploitation later.)
And before you say anything else about knowing or not knowing how the game works, let me just say that I'm a database administrator and software developer with about 18 years of experience in real world environments. I might not know their specific systems but I know how databasing, coding, and testing works. Even if what you are asking for is a trivial code change -- and I doubt it is -- it still affects a huge portion of the game and would have to be tested against it.
Adding PvP was undoubtedly a lot of work. A comparatively small proportion of the playerbase makes use of it. Even so, it was added to the game because it was deemed "worth" doing.Quote:A programming shop has limited resources. If twelve players want Luminous Blast to throw unicorns, it's worth consideration but will ultimately be shot down because the resources necessary to implement the system are needed for something that affects a larger portion of the gaming population.
The worthiness of the suggestion is entirely a matter of opinion. Obviously, we disagree as to the worthiness of the idea.Quote:I just don't agree with you that this adds anything to the game that doesn't already exist. If I've played Bozilla the Fire/Fire tanker to 50 and now want something new I'll roll up Boz the Fire/Fire blaster. Hell, if the name is that important to me, I'll spend $10 and rename Bozilla.
Except they're NOT the same character. They represent the original character, but they're different characters. (philosophical debate ensues... Is a clone of you, YOU?)Quote:Sort of like how I have five toons with different powers and ATs that all happen to be the same librarian. How strange. How do you reckon I pulled that off? Maybe by rolling some alts... just like Henry Pym did in your example. -
The "it's too much work" argument still holds not weight, as fas as I'm concerned. To begin with, we don't know how much work it would involve. You can imagine it being a lot, I can imagine it being less, and neither of us can be right or wrong, because we simply don't have that information. Either way, anything they add to the game will take some amount of work. This idea is as worthy as any other.
Even if it only affects a handful of players, it's still worth consideration. I mean, only a handful of players enjoy PvP, yet it was implemented. The key is not forcing it on anyone.
It's even got a comic-book example. Henry Pym has changed his power set and AT several times.
Ant Man - Hm... Controller?
Giant Man - Tank
Yellowjacket - Defender or Blaster...