Ultimo_

The passage you quote was explanatory. It provided the reason for the opinion the thread was started to express, it was not itself the reason for the thread.

If your sole contribution to the thread is going to be to make insults, I'll ask you not to post. Further namecalling will be reported.


That said, this thread has devolved, as usual, into arguing about arguing. As such I wash my hands of it, it serves no further purpose.

To conclude, I'll say this:
I don't like the Fitness Pool being made inherent. I don't believe it adequately addresses what I percieve as problems with the game. I believe it adds NEW problems, including forcing powers on people that they might not want and leaves us with more powers and no new slots to put in them.

I would rather have seen the pool reorganized so Stamina was available at L6, or Stamina ALONE made inherent, and something new put into the Fitness Pool at L20.

Perhaps because my first post was about the Fitness Pool, and not endurance in general?

There is no way to make powers use NO endurance. There is no way to NEVER need endurance. Either way, I've never suggested that would be appropriate. Straw Man fails.

Do YOU read what I type? I said a personal value judgement can't be argued because it's PERSONAL. You may think the builds I've been shown can sufficiently mitigate endurance issues. That's YOUR assessment. YOUR value judgement. Mine is different.

No, I wasn't arguing. As I said when I started the thread, I was only expressing my opinion, I don't have to argue anything. Arguing over an opinion is pointless. The opinion itself isn't.

I have tremendous respect for Arcanaville's abilities and knowledge. However, she isn't the Oracle of Delphi, and I'm still allowed to disagree. She thinks the Hero system couldn't be adapted to a video game (if I understood correctly). I think it could. It would take a lot of work, to be sure, but I don't see it necessarily being impossible.

There was no point in arguing. I have my opinion, they have theirs.

What mystique I must have that you have to imply some kind of e-smackdown when I choose not to argue a pointless argument.

Getting ready for class, so I'm afraid I'll have to be brief. Rebalancing endurance would indeed be a big task. I've never said otherwise. If you're going to adjust it for damage, you have to adjust it for everything so it's fair across the board.

I'm an old Champions (p&p) player. All the powers were built on points, and the active cost of the power (its cost after advantages were added) determined the endurance use. Thus, if I had a power worth 60 points, it used 6 endurance, regardless of whether it was 12d6 or 6d6 with lots of advantages, or a defensive power like a force field.


I wasn't lobbying for anything. I started a thread to say I don't care for the changes to Fitness. Others brought up my "crusades" to balance things, and it became the topic of discussion.


What you said. Unfortunately, many prefer to take shots at me instead of actually trying to be constructive. Like you, I'd rather discuss ways to improve things, but I suspect that's a vain hope. I suppose I'll have to let it drop, as usual.

I never said I was responsible for any of those things. I said I was reviled for bringing them up, told I was wrong and that none of those things were needed or possible. Obviously, I wasn't wrong.

Yep, but that's new. It's one of those things I was told wasn't needed, yet the devs seem to have agreed that it was.

I didn't suggest removing recharge or changing the damage scale. I suggested evening out the endurance scale.

The problem is that this isn't true. Harder hitting sets use the SAME endurance as weaker sets. The Blaster set is identical to the Defender set, but hits harder without using more endurance.

As I said, debuffing the enemy doesn't defeat them, damage does. Now, debuffing their resistance will help defeat them, but not all sets do that.

I'm not asking for anything, really. I'm saying I'd have preferred a different approach.

For me, at least, there are several things about Bloodlines that make it great. To begin with, it's got wonderful atmosphere. The voice acting is great with few exceptions, and the setting is very gritty and immersive (the graphics even still hold up pretty well). In addition, it has wonderful roleplaying options. I can try to interact with people by persuasion, intimidation or seduction, and how I treat people has an actual effect on things. There are actual choices to be made, and missions I can ignore or miss without ruining the game. It's amazingly deep. Another thing I like is no combat levels. I've never liked that, skill systems like Bloodlines has are much more realistic.

Redemption had some wonderful points to it too, but it wasn't as engaging to me because I couldn't make my OWN character, and it became all about combat (and rather repetetive combat, at that).

The Masqerade RPG appeals to people who enjoy that little bit of angst and the gothic horror theme. I'd love to see an MMO based on it, frankly, but I've lost nearly all faith in game designers lately.


Backstory and lore should be in the game. Most of it should be completely extraneous, but it SHOULD be there to facilitate stories and situations when it will be valuable.

Very well said. Indeed, you captured what I've been saying perfectly.

You're also right, the thread is somewhat pointless, all I wanted to do was say I wasn't crazy about how they decided to address some of the problems with endurance management. I've done that, so I think I'll take the high road and avoid any further mud-slinging.

I will say I have a tendency to exaggerate sometimes, and I have been wrong on occasion. However, I never lie or deliberately present false information.

No, I'm not saying my "crusades" were responsible for the changes, I'm saying that I was obviously not as wrong as some suggest.

The Blaster has a secondary set, too. Both ATs use both sets and the Defender still suffers the endurance problems I described. The same is true for Tankers, though to somewhat less of a degree. In the end, the game does boil down to damage output since that's the only way to defeat your enemies. I can debuff a foe all day and night and it will never defeat him. I can have Temporary Invulnerability running forever, and it will never defeat a foe. Only damage will do that, and some ATs are disadvantaged as I've described.


I was flamed, as others were, with the adminishment that customization and the like would never happen, the devs wouldn't waste resources on it and so forth. Not the usual vilification, but flaming all the same.


I didn't realize a facepalm was adequate argument for something.


Yes, because the disparity isn't in output, it's in performance and efficiency. Further, because it's the damage set, it's the most fundamental set for each class (as mentioned, damage is the only way to defeat foes).


You're saying Defenders have no need to do damage?
I didn't say endurance was unmanageable. I didn't say it there, and I didn't say it here. I said the game should be about fighting villans, not managing endurance. Endurance concerns are excessive.


Interesting, I counted 7 times (and more).
People just can't admit that things I bring up are actually things that need looking at. If I was wrong, why did the devs address ALL those things, hm?


As I said, I'm not taking credit for the changes, but obviously I was right about them or they wouldn't have happened.

I said Defenders needed a boost and was told I was wrong. Who will be first to tell the devs they were wrong too?

I suggested something similar to tips years ago, long before GR.

When I (and Johhny_Butane) said Invulnerability needed a tweak and suggested changes to the autopowers, we were attacked and laughed at. You want to start laughing at Castle for having the same opinion we did?

The customization thing came up for years and we recieved a variety of responses from the devs. From the community we recieved hostility and antagonism for daring to discuss the idea again. Again, I'm not taking credit, I'm pointing out the hostility I dealt with despite being RIGHT AGAIN.

Day Jobs were a response to many requests for Secret IDs. When some of us asked for Secret IDs were attacked and told this isn't City of Sims. Of course, Day Jobs are not quite what we were after, but it shows again that we weren't far off base.

I said, repeatedly, that rep and tags would be abused. Once again I was right.

I could keep going too, but I see no point.

It's funny, you know. If my "past crusades" were so off target, why did so many of them result in changes and additions to the game?

I said Defenders needed help with damage output (and was vigorously flamed for saying so).
Defenders recieved a boost to damage output.

I suggested street sweeping should generate missions (there was little resistance to this idea)
We now have Tip missions.

I (and others) argued Invulnerability needed a revamp (and was vigorously flamed for saying so).
They modified the Invulnerability autopowers.

I (and others) suggested allowing weapon customization (and was vigorously flamed for doing so).
We got weapon customization.

I (and others) suggested power customization (and was vigorously flamed for doing so).
We got new animations and colour customization.

I suggested Secret IDs (and was vigorously flamed for doing so).
We got Day Jobs (not quite what I was after).

I suggested getting rid of the Rep system on the Forums (and was vigorously flamed for doing so).
It's gone.

I could go on.


Of course, some things I've suggested haven't appeared yet, but one never knows.

I don't agree that powers are balanced. All characters are expected to overcome the same challenges, but some ATs and power sets are at a disadvantage when doing so. To continue the example of Defenders vs Blasters, that the Defender does roughly half the damage of the Blaster means he has to attack twice as often to defeat the same foe. That means he uses twice the endurance. If a Blaster uses his whole endurance bar defeating three minions (for instance), the Defender will defeat ONE and be out of endurance before defeating the second. The discrepancy exists between power sets, too, though it's far less pronounced.

Now, I realize that some sets are expected to do less damage because they have additional effects (such as the accuracy debuff of Dark powers), but that's fine as long as the difference isn't overly extreme. Damage is, after all, the only metric that matters in the final analysis since it's the only way to defeat the enemy.



I'll readily admit, I haven't proven there's a problem, I've only percieved it. However, I think comparing damage/endurance levels of the ATs shows there's a discrepancy. Personally, I think the discrepancy is a problem. Others may disagree.


There are many ways of dealing with endurance issues in the game, that's true. However, it's my opinion that these methods are insufficient. We should be fighting the enemy, not a game mechanic, if you see what I mean.

You ask for an example, so I refer you back to the Blaster/Defender. If they both slot their attacks the same way, the Defender will still run out of endurance before the Blaster. If the Defender uses some of these methods you mention, he will be at an even greater disadvantage relative to the Blaster. If he slots more endurance reduction, he loses damage or accuracy. If he slows his attacks, he reduces his damage output even further, and becomes exposed to more damage. Having less health in addition to everything else, he faces greater chance of defeat.



See above.

How much would I change the recovery rate? I don't have a number to give you, but I'd put it somewhere between the current level and the level Stamina provides. I'd see how that works and adjust it up or down as neccessary. Honestly, I really dislike the endurance mechanic in general, but I accept that it's meant to balance gameplay and so should remain in the game. I once considered suggesting that powers have more or less effect depending on endurance level (so if you were at 50% endurance, your attack would do only 50% damage), but I'm not sure that would be better.



I'm not sure how to answer this. "What would happen to powerset balance?" Nothing, with a global change. The balance would still be discrepant. The difference would be that disadvantaged sets would be somewhat more capable. The Defender would now use a full bar to defeat three minions, while the Blaster would use half. At least the Defender would now be better able to defeat the same threat. Again, I don't think a global boost is the best way, but it's better than nothing.

How, or if, this would affect the balance relative to our foes is another question, though.



Sorry for the delay, I have a case study due that needed working on.

Perhaps the thing to do is modify endurance by the damage scalar AS WELL as the damage itself.

I hope that answers you adequately, I appreciate the considered and polite response.

I was preparing to write a response to your well considered post (thanks for that), but I'm falling asleep on my keyboard. I promise to review and respond tomorrow as time permits.

Show me where I said I wanted tankmages, or that I don't want to be challenged. Oh, that's right, you CAN'T, because I never said that.


I dont' see why anything else would need to be modified. The goal is to make endurance management more balanced and less cumbersome and invasive. In a sense, you're right, though. I don't expect this to change, so I suppose I'm really just "flabbing" my gums.


That might be easier, but I wasn't worried so much about the mechanism as the result.


So... you're telling me I don't know how to play? Really, after 6 years of playing the game and nearly 40 years of gaming and game design, you're going to tell me I don't know anything?

In THIS thread, I've offered no evidence of anything, I've offered only my opinion on a new change. You're still arguing another thread. In that thread I said that the tools that are available to mitigate the impact of endurance on gameplay are insufficient in my opinion.

I don't see how questioning and attacking my integrity, my knowledge and experience and my motives can be taken as anything but a personal attack.



I'll say it again, I'm not against this change. There's lots of good that will come of it. I just think it's a bandaid that leave the real problem unfixed.

AGAIN, just my opinion.