Valerika
-
Posts
321 -
Joined
-
Quote:No, to me, no sets should be hard. That's the whole point of having a game with excellent customization and not tying costumes to performance values--looking cool shouldn't be "hard". It should be easy, and that is supposed to be one of the things that seperates us from other games. We don't have to slave for hours in order to get the Cloak of Uber Goodness. Having all the costume options available up front is fair, and is attractive to new players. Pretending that the concept of "prestige costumes" has value is pretentious and serves no purpose.Originally Posted by all_hell
So, to you, one hard set ruins the benefit of all of the others.
My mileage varies. I am fine with many easier ones and a few hard ones.
I suppose it would be, if you didn't use the ridiculous strawman arguement that I don't believe ANY rewards should be hard to achieve. Read more closely--I think acccolades that improve performance makes perfect sense--playing should improve your performance anyway.Quote:There should be some rewards that are harder to achieve than others. Period.
I trust my assertion was as persuasive as yours.
"My real-life quote made me look foolish, so I'll pretend I didn't make it." You used a real-life example because art often imitates life. Don't call "time out" because your reasoning doesn't hold water. Fighting a war just to get a costume is stupid in real life, and it's even more stupid in a game.Quote:Bear in mind that we're still just talking about pretendy fun time stuff and it's not about risking actual lives. It's just about playing a game to get a pretend outfit for a made up character. -
Quote:I find that patently ridiculous, and I'd be willing to bet that most of the accounts of those days were made by people far away from the actual fighting. You can't "tell great stories" if you're dead. And besides, we're fighting the Rikti because they're invading our home and trying to kill all of us. We aren't looking for "sexy scars". Just the idea of that trivializes the sacrifices of war.Originally Posted by Umbral
Depends on the time and war. In Napoleon's days, many soldiers risked their lives specifically because it was glorious and let you tell great stories later (not to mention the sexy scars). In the middle ages, knights would do pretty much the same thing. Of course, all of that changed pretty much after the Napoleonic era when militaries realized how easy it was to kill people on the other side indiscriminately from very far away in a decidedly inglorious manner.
-
Quote:Having a hard to aquire set defeats the purpose of advertising that your game has one of the best character creation tools ever, and that it is built with the casual gamer in mind. Outfits shouldn't be a "hallmark of hard work and effort". That's what accolades are for. I think the concept of "unlockable costumes" is a turnoff for casual gamers. If you insist on giving rewards for grinding, make them performance based, since your performance is supposed to improve as you play anyway.Originally Posted by all_hell
Having a hard acquire set diminishes or undermines the rest of the easier to acquire sets?
Because you shouldn't have to grind your way through repetetive content for a costume. Period.Quote:I don't think he was saying that either.
However, if the costume set is no better than some other one, substitute the one that's more easily attainable and be done with it. Yet, people don't seem to be satisfied with that for some reason(s).
Having an inclusive and comprehensive costume creater RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX is what I consider "valuable". Making people jump through hoops to get a costume doesn't make that costume "valuable"--it just proves that you've run out of ideas, and you've started to alienate new players/people with altitis/people with lower-end computers, etc. There is no need for that.Quote:To me anyway, easier to get means less valuable. Obviously, other people see things differently.
I just got back from Afghanistan, and I can tell you, no one--NO ONE--risks their lives for a GODD***ED RIBBON. You do it because you love your country, you do it because you love your family, and you do it because you care about the people standing next to you. Anyone who risks their lives for a "bit of colored ribbon" belongs in a madhouse.Quote:A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.
Napoleon Bonaparte -
The fuss is because one of the main draws of this game is the costume creator, and that draw is undermined by making the Vanguard set so difficult to obtain. Normally, that much effort (either in raids or grinding), would earn you a nice boost to your performance through increased accuracy, higher damage, etc. That would be considered "worth it". Instead, the developers have mixed up their markets--they've given a costume set (something casual gamers/RP'ers enjoy) as a reward for raids and grinding (something min/maxers, raiders, etc do expecting performance increases).
I don't think Samuel_Tow is suggesting he wants the Vanguard costumes to be "better"--one of the draws of this game is that costumes have no performance boosts. Unlike other games, costume pieces don't have inherent value other than looking cool. And the less effort it requires to look cool, the more casual gamers will enjoy this game. Making people jump through extraordinary hoops just for a COSTUME makes no sense. Either lower the requirements for the costume...or give us the costume for free and change the rewards to something more substantial. And if you do the latter--for God's sake, give everyone who worked hard and earned the costume the performance boost when they log on. -
I did read the whole idea, and I think you're going in the wrong direction. If anything, Guantlet should become more effective at drawing aggro rather than damage mitigation.
As for scrappers, their inherent currently matches their role--damage dealing. Scrappers are more solo friendly, and the ability to score critical hits reflects that.
I'm sorry, but scrappers aren't tanks--they aren't designed to fill the same role. Tanks are designed to be more team-based than scrappers. Being a tank means sacrificing damage for greater mitigation and aggro control. That's why the inherent is the way it is. -
You mentioned how Going Rogue is going to raise questions about why someone would pick a tank when they can pick a brute--the answer is GAUNTLET. The major difference between a tank and a brute is that tanks are specifically designed for damage mitigation and aggro control. Changing the tank inherent into something more "solo-friendly" would blur the lines between those two ATs even more. It's ironic that the way you intend to improve tanks is by making it more difficult for them to do what they do best--taking damage and making sure the rest of the team doesn't. If you change a tanker's inherent, the question wouldn't be "Why should I play a tanker when I can play a brute?", it would REALLY become "Why should I *INVITE* a tank when I can invite a brute?" The current answer is "because a tank does a better job of keeping us from getting killed".
And honestly, tanks don't need their mitigation boosted. If you're making squishy tanks, that's your own fault. They aren't an inherently vulnerable AT, you've just sacrificed mitigation for damage in your own personal builds. -
Quote:*Has a very strong urge to play his newly-rolled Widow, even though he promised he would wait until his GF hit 50 so he could level pact with her new VEAT*Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
A team of 2+ VEATs is good. A team of 4+ VEATs is lethal.
A team of 7 or 8 VEATs is an armour plated steamroller of destruction, an unstoppable and merciless machine that devastates all in its path and leaves even the ground beneath it in ruin merely by it's very prescence and overexposure to sheer awesomeness!!
/Jack Black moment.
Seriously, they are fantastic. Forget HEAT on a good team, VEAT teams are awesome incarnate.
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!! !!!! -
Quote:It's not my intention to cry "doom". I do think that there will be some ATs that will find it easier to join teams under GR than others, but that's no cause for despair. It might even lead to AT buffs, much as those that Stalkers recieved not too long ago.
I'm hoping that others don't start to take the discussion too seriously and start crying "doom" for defenders, etc. -
Quote:I completely agree, and I would NEVER refuse to invite someone to one of my teams because his or her AT "wasn't good enough" for my team. I'm not advocating selective invites or that kind of behavior. I think when it happens, it's largely so automatic that people don't think about it. Rather than saying "Ewww... dominator...gross!", people just say, "Well, we need crowd control, and some heals would be nice...hey look a controller!" And the poor dominator gets left out through no fault of his or her own.Originally Posted by KingSnake
This game is just easy enough to be able to truthful boost that no one AT or CLASS is required at all at any time in the game.
So what i'm saying is, min maxers aside, 99% won't care what you are so long as you can play. *shrug*
I completely agree. But, the change may affect which characters I roll when I'm interested in team friendly builds now...Quote:Outside of that. Just more variety. And variety is good IMO. -
Quote:Of course they are. That's why I said they were "predictions" rather than "here are my guarantees" However, I believe that assuming all ATs will remain equally sought after is just as questionable an assumption.Originally Posted by Lemur Lad
I think the assumptions in the OP are just that, assumptions.
It isn't just duration that leads people to choose controllers over dominators. It's also the buffs. On most teams, you don't invite somone with crowd control because you need more damage.Quote:For every team that "needs" a Controller over a Dominator because of their added durations, there will be a team interested in killing speed who will appreciate a Dom's ability to be ease the alpha strikes and kill things before the duration of their CC wears off.
If there's one thing CoOp has taught us, it's this statement isn't accurate. First off, RWZ is largely limited (not completely, but largely) to higher level teams, teammates who have enemy chat enabled, etc. GR is going to expand this dynamic exponentially. It won't be a matter of trying to scrape together a team in a single zone, it will be gamewide. And even in RWZ, certain ATs have had trouble getting teams anyway. Unfortunately, anecodatal evidence is all we have in either case, but in my particular case, my dominator, for example, had a harder time getting on teams in RWZ than she did on non-CoOp teams.Quote:There are two sides to every coin, and one thing CoOp has taught us is that every AT has something to contribute, and there's no reason to seek out one over the others when it comes to most content. -
One aspect of Going Rogue will be the change in demand for certain archetypes with regards to teaming. I thought about which ATs could see an increase in demand. Please bear in mind that I enjoy playing almost all the ATs in the game, and I'm not "out to get" any specific AT, even if I think it may be unfavorable for teaming under new mixed villain/hero teams. Some ATs are incredibly fun to play even if many teams may not want them as much. Here are my predictions:
Those that I think may see an increase in demand:
1. Brutes--With their damage output and survivability, they may begin to eclipse scrappers on mixed teams. Also, in teams where multiple buffers are present and crowd control is less necessary(teams with lots of defenders, etc), they may become a preferable alternative to a tank.
2. Masterminds--Another good mixture of damage and survivability. With defenders on their teams, their henchmen will become an even greater force and harder to kill. They may steal some of the thunder from tanks.
3. Controllers--Better crowd control than a dominator (outside of permadom), buffs comparable to a corruptor.
4. VEATs (specifically Night Widows)--Better damage and survivability (in many cases) than a scrapper, plus a team defense buff.
5. Defenders--Better buffs than a corruptor, teams with lots of masterminds and brutes will definitely find a warm place for them in their black hearts.
These are just my predictions. I'm curious to hear what everyone else thinks. Thanks! -
You're right--this is an amazing idea!
.
.
.
Amazingly bad. Really, really hope this is a joke. Pretty sure it is, though. -
Quote:Obviously the Rikti are incapable of speaking English then. Otherwise they'd simply learn the language. Maybe they can speak, but they do so in a register too high for humans to hear, maybe they can only bark like dogs or make buzzing sounds like an insect (something audible but not directly convertible into human speech), etc. For example, even if humans learned the language of dolphins, I doubt most of us could speak it. We can't squeak, squeal, and bark like that with our existing vocal cords. To me, "voice translator" = synthesized voice or no accent at all. Why would a translator add an accent?Originally Posted by Godpants
Yes, the Rikti can speak, and Fusionette has a bit of dialogue (delivered in Valley Girl speak, fer shure) about one of the Rikti using his new voice translator to hit on her during one of the RWZ missions.
-
Quote:Could be sign languageOriginally Posted by NuclearToast
Of course they can speak. Why else would they be gesticulating during their monologues in the cut scenes?
--NT
Also, they could just speak telepathically, and only gesture to add emphasis as desired. If you can't talk, using gestures becomes all the more important. So when they speak English (or let a synthesizer do it) they just continue to gesture as they "speak" out of force of habit.
-
Quote:I think, but I'm not sure, that according to the story lore, NO ONE spoke French as their native language by that time. I remember Picard getting upset when Data referred to "an obscure language known as French" in an older episode. God...I'm a dork.Originally Posted by NuclearToast
I still don't know why the French captain of the Enterprise D spoke with a high English accent.
I vote for voice synthesizers--a sort of combination of Stephen Hawking and Optimus Prime. Who says they even have lungs/vocal cords/tongues capable of human speech?Quote:What accent would we use for the Rikti? As Mr_Grey pointed out, we already have dubbed text (word bubbles), so I vote they dub in Klingon. -
Quote:Yes they do. Better yet, the person they are addressing should continue the scene by switching to English (which they probably know better than the tourist) with a bad accent THEMSELVES. Then they should give the tourist directions...to the American Embassy.Originally Posted by Mr. NoPants
I'm confused I was talking about people who do this:
aaah woud laaahhhk to gooh to zee houtel
Those people need to be allowed to identify themselves as soon as possible for proper mockery. -
Quote:Not true--he may not have changed accents, but he has spoken other languages on screen. He actually spoke a little Russian in Hunt for Red October. This movie actually had a good transition from Russian to English. They started speaking Russian, and then switched to English without an accent by zooming in to a character's mouth while he spoke and then zooming out. It was an interesting method.Originally Posted by Diggis
Sean Connery has played more nationalities that most other actors (I'm sure I heard more than any other actors, but can't be sure) and not once has he had anything other than his broad scottish accent.
-
Quote:Not Canadians, most of them speak two--English and French. Mexicans...probably so. Most of them only speak Spanish. HOWEVER--they aren't nearly as snobbish about language as most people I've met. If you even TRY to speak Spanish, they will appreciate it, regardless of how much you butcher your pronounciation or confuse the words.Originally Posted by Godpants
Are you counting Canadians and Mexicans as Americans?
-
Quote:Actually, most people I know experience a form of the reverse--you attempt to actually speak the other language, and your accent is so poor that the other person switches to English to accommodate you. In my experience, this is most common among visitors to Japan and Germany, where dealing with English speakers is so commonplace that most of the signs even have English subtitles.Originally Posted by Mr. NoPants
Two points:
1. Most of us who know one language want to make fun of people who try to speak to someone in another language by faking a bad accent.
Very true--my uncle speaks five, and my aunt speaks four. Unfortunately, I'm definitely American. I'm trying to learn Spanish again after a long break though. I'd like to get to the point where I can "think" in Spanish just as my mother does in German.Quote:2. Some people speak more then three languages so the joke should go there are two type of people multilingual and American. -
Quote:There are more of them than most of us would like to admit. You've heard the old joke--there are three types of people: trilingual, bilingual, and American.Originally Posted by Mr. NoPants
It's good that people that dumb expose themselves early so the right type of mockery can be used.
-
I personally think that substituting an accent for an actual foreign language sets a bad precedent. I can picture someone going to a country like France without learning the language, and turning smugly to his companions. "Watch this, I'll take care of everything. I've seen enough movies to know how this works." *turns to Frenchman* "Excuse me, sir? Aaaah woud laaahhhk to gooh to zee houtel."
-
Quote:It's very clear that Steve's chestplate isn't the only thing that's gone missing...Originally Posted by Blood Spectre
I think we're all missing out on a deeper issue, which I would like to bring to light.
This dude's toon is a chick named Steve. -
Quote:I partially agree and partially disagree--some people act evil because they are selfish and don't care about others, and some people are genuinely evil and hurt others because they ENJOY it. While I do have some characters that roleplay true sadism, it's really out there, and when you see it in real life, it's one of the ugliest things out there.Originally Posted by Hero2
I think that the D&D system is wrong. Rather than "evil" it should be selfish. As such I guess I'd want to see myself as chaotic good, but I have to say I'm probably neutral lawful.
As for my characters:
Solicio: Neutral Good
Malacronia: Chaotic Evil
Malicio: Lawful Evil -
Quote:This gives me a strong urge to create a female puppet character in the theme of Pinnocchio. That way, when anyone asks if I'm a "real girl", I can say, "No, but someday, I WILL be a REAL GIRL! IIIIIIIII'VE GOT NO STRINGS, TO HOLD ME DOWN, TO......."Originally Posted by hedgehog_NA
people ask "are you a real girl/boy?"
-
Quote:Ummm..."POW!" ?Originally Posted by Sigium
Pssst... It's only funny if it's relevant.