Void_Huntress

Super-Powered
  • Posts

    484
  • Joined

  1. Void_Huntress

    Time Overpowered

    So far, I only have two live TM characters.

    Thyme Machine, my Plants/Time controller..

    ... and my latest incarnation of a melee defender. She only attacks using pool powers. It takes her even longer to kill things than most defenders, but she's still relatively immortal in standard difficulty solo content.
  2. Void_Huntress

    Time Overpowered

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    True, but in the case of Willpower the *vast majority* opinion was that it sucked, not just that it wasn't great. In the case of TM, the majority opinion (to a lesser degree) was that it was "average." Even by the devs own admission TM was aiming to be a competitor to Kin and Rad, two of the sets considered among the most powerful. I just think they outdid themselves a little.
    My very first impression of Time Manipulation was, "WHOAH. REALLY?"

    My second impression of Time Manipulation was, "A spawn of +2 outcasts can't kill me when I haven't even summoned my demons."

    I still would happily trade the first three powers of Pain Domination for just Temporal Mending. It would do my mercs so much more good.

    As it stands, I might have to just retire my mecs/pain and play /time MMs from now on.
  3. Void_Huntress

    Time Overpowered

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    In beta I called Time Manipulation the Willpower of buff/debuff sets, with all that implies.
    I was fond of "Undeserved gift from the gaming gods".
  4. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    Honestly, I have to be frank here. The last time I saw something like the Paragon Store's implementation someone outsourced development to a sweatshop in India.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by seebs View Post
    The store does have that "outsourced" feel to it -- you get the feeling that there was a checklist of features but that there was at no point any kind of design.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zwillinger View Post
    We are still working on a way to filter past purchases, however there's some snags with how the database plays with individual items, past purchases and bundles. It's a known request and something we're working with our partners to figure out.
    Emphasis added.

    What if that DOESN'T mean 'some guy in another ncsoft office' ?
  5. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    I wouldn't say its meaningless. For example, it shows how many character slots I've purchased total, and how many were used. I could compare that to how many the game thinks I have left to verify I have the correct number of slots. I could also verify the number it thinks I used corresponds to the number of extra slots I've deployed on other servers. If I wanted to know if I purchased something and I wasn't sure, I could text search that data to see if it showed up anywhere. Its not the best organized data, but I could see some use for it for people checking up on Freedom.

    If you have the inclination, you could write a script to reparse that data as CSV and stick it into Excel. I might do that this weekend if I have some time. You could then do things like sort it looking for similar or duplicate items.
    It's not meaningless, but as Seebs says, it does not indicate PURCHASES in any reasonable fashion. It indicates unlocks. These are overlapping but not equivalent.

    Yesterday I had a friend make a costume purchase through the market, and proceed to get upset because a) it was still showing as locked in the costume creator, despite multiple relogs and a fair amount of time, and b) there was no indication the transaction was actually SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED once you're past the screen where you finalize it. A lack of simple records here is problematic for basic end users.

    It eventually did work, but a lot of the stress would have been circumvented by actually seeing that the transaction was logged.

    His parting remark was to the effect of he didn't mind the delay so much as the lack of paper trail. Without that, he can only see it as a potential black hole money pit and will not buy points.
  6. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    If it was up to me, the concept of evasion - causing an attack to completely miss its target - would exist. However, I recognize that causes the potential problem that players can miss (allowing only critters to miss and not players violates my cardinal design rule that PvP should work the same way as PvE from the beginning rather than ad hocing PvP into weird exception rules for balance purposes). I would probably be fighting uphill convincing an entire dev team to allow for missing.

    Creating a way to miss in a way that minimizes the potential frustration of players is one of those open ended problems I find most interesting from a design perspective, but also most difficult to resolve.
    I personally think this -- the potential to miss -- should be something players should just have to deal with in a non-twitch game. It'd be nice to find a way to minimize the potential frustration, but the genre needs dodgy characters, and if you ALWAYS take damage, it doesn't feel particularly dodgy.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    And yes, between melee attacks being borderline retarded to take and (super) reflexes being anything but, except until extreme circumstances, it took no time at all for me to be completely turned off to melee-anything in that other game.
    I ended up taking invulnerability with the block replacer enhancement that automatically triggers in melee to approximate a character who wasn't getting hit. I find it easier to ignore tiny pings of 1 damage with occasional higher bursts than constant half damage onslaughts.

    Of course, that might just be me, but I just really prefer designing characters that survive more from getting hit less. I don't aim for unhittable, but I want to get hit for the same damage less often. Not hit just as often for less damage. It's a key conceptual difference for me, and I'll even take substandard performance in general to achieve it.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    I do find the basic idea of blocking to be attractive, though. I think that was basically a good idea, albeit with some issues.
    I think the block concept was a decent one, and block replacement was a fascinating mechanic. I personally think if they had some more depth to character builds -- a single passive? Really? This and a 'stance' is what defines the overall behavior of most characters outside of specific attack powers? -- more could have been usefully done with that.
  7. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    Its interesting to me that for all Cryptic gets wrong, my idea of a pretty good starting point for an MMO is Champions Online's mechanics, City of Heroes powers and combat system, and Star Trek Online's reward system. In other words, rationalized non-accelerating base mechanics, diversified archetypes and activation-based combat, and task-skewed rewards.
    Please tell me you would allow actual dodging in this hypothetical hybrid, right? Right?

    That was the thing that I found most upsetting about CO. I wasn't allowed to actually dodge anything ever.
  8. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dromio View Post
    Especially if they tested it in beta and it wasn't working the way they thought. All they had to do was come out at that time and say "hey, we want it to work this way, but right now it's not. We're going to try and have this ready by launch, but we can't guarantee it." Expectations are then set accurately.

    Now if they didn't test in beta until the day before release, well, I won't even go there.
    Sometimes, you can do all the tests you like, but until you go to try it with relatively current live data you don't know for sure if it'll work.

    In large companies production databases are often not available to the developers of the software, and sometimes even getting a duplicate of production for testing is incredibly difficult.

    When you're developing based on a description of what the data is supposed to look like, it gets rough.
  9. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tahliah View Post
    Wait. So when a new issue releases, we have to buy it, piecemeal, at the Paragon Market using either our "free" 400 pts or actual cash? That can't be right. There's clearly something wrong with my reading comprehension, right?
    Yes, there is something wrong with your reading comprehension. We will get things as part of our subscription. Some of them (like time manipulation) will be automatically available to us as VIPs. Others (like beam rifle) are available to us to take using our monthly stipend, allowing us to customize what we get as part of our subscription without additional charge.

    Then, if we want MORE than that, we can spend money to get more, similar to how the boosters worked in the past. And they'll be making a lot more of those things to pick from, either for stipend purchases or additional point expenditure purchases.
  10. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sailboat View Post
    That's what I was trying to convey -- the 45% does not change.
    Except against turrets and pet-class enemies, which have a higher base to-hit (75%) than everything else in standard content (50%), as I understand it.
  11. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    I keep thinking I should make a flowchart for this, although I'm not sure what the devs would think about that.
    "Do we have spare cube wall space somewhere to post this?"
  12. Quote:
    Originally Posted by arcanaville View Post
    that would make for an interesting itrial.
    warning: Marauder has eaten tacos. Back away.
  13. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    To reproduce interunit field tactics with interpower synergy effects in a way that would make these two situations directly analogous would be challenging to say the least. And that's why requirement one is there: I don't see a way to bypass it and get relateable results. Wargames in general are fine if there is a way to customize *units* in an interesting enough way to be analogous to the way an MMO open powers system would work, or if the wargame fields larger scale superunits that contain individual units that aren't themselves customizable and which operate atomically. That would be more analogous to an MMO open powers system. Ogre doesn't do this.
    The closest I can think of on this front would be BattleTech.
  14. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    Although I don't have first hand experience buying recent re-releases and such, my understanding is most versions of Ogre use the same basic rules. Also keep in mind I'm talking about Ogre the hex-board wargame, not GURPS Ogre the RPG or the miniature system Ogre which is based on the hex-board version but I'm much less familiar with.
    I'm currently looking into the 2000 printing of the Ogre board game (and GEV, which appears to be an extension of the ruleset in another direction).

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    Why its just a hint of the problem is because the strength of the counter-army is difficult to fully assess because its partially based on the tactics used to drive it. Its hard to say if the Ogre is exactly balanced with the intrinsic power of the counter-army, or if the Ogre is easier to tactically deploy and the counter-army much harder to get maximum effectiveness out of, which acts to handicap the counter-army. In other words, I don't know if in a computer vs computer match, if the Ogre has a significant advantage or the opposing army does, eliminating human factors. It would be an interesting problem to study, though.
    I find this question very interesting. I'm going to start poking at it, I think.
  15. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    And even more interesting in terms of game design is the game Ogre, which was in my opinion the absolute pinnacle of asymmetric game balance. You can't get much more asymmetric than Ogre.
    You've mentioned Ogre a few times, so I was wanting to look into researching it. Are the more recent editions still good exemplars?
  16. Void_Huntress

    Meta-Changes

    I think I'll stick to my same policy on blind invites as always. If I'm not otherwise occupied, I'll accept them.



    ... Then stand in the doorway, and get XP/inf/drops until someone boots me.
  17. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ultimus View Post
    Ah thank you, that makes sense now.

    I just wanted to collect all of my veteran awards which I realize won't carry over? Been subscribed since day 1 and still not planning to quit
    Actually, they will carry over.
  18. Quote:
    Originally Posted by seebs View Post
    I have one, and love it. Not super fast, maybe, but I can clear stuffthat "better" builds can't. Eventually.

    Also, you gotta love the look and feel.
    Dual Pistols is by FAR my favorite blast set (until Beam Rifle hits, then I'm going to have a personal crisis) despite it being 'lackluster' in performance compared to other blast sets at high end IO slotting.

    It just looks so awesome.
  19. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Morgan Reed View Post
    When you bought your phone, you were given the right to take your phone to any carrier you wanted. At any time. If this isn't allowed, then you were only renting/leasing your phone.
    As Chad noted, there are a lot of cases where you buy a phone, or other piece of hardware, and while it is 'yours' there's.. nowhere else to take it, either because there's nobody else who has the same tech to talk to that device, or the device itself was constructed in such a way to make that difficult or impossible.

    Still, I'm going to stand by the fact that the CoX boxes themselves weren't a product, they were a set-up fee. They paid for the effort of putting together the game our subscription gets us access to, but didn't provide us anything in particular for us.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Morgan Reed View Post
    Now if Apple said "sure, you can change carriers. But you have to pay us for that phone first." There would be consumer backlash over it. This isn't saying that it would be right. Or that Apple should not have charged for the phone. But customers would revert to their programmed belief that purchase = ownership. And that they believed they bought the phone free and clear, and just took the tacked on contract along with it.
    They would feel insulted ("slapped in the face") for having to pay for the phone twice.
    Ever heard of an ETF? They show up all throughout internet and cellphone providers. It's extremely common for you to pay some amount for the equipment, but you're locked into a contract. Part of this is because that price is subsidized by the monthly fees. If you break out of the contract ahead of schedule, they recover their costs through the ETF. This isn't directly relevant to the current conversation, except to correct a conceptual error.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Morgan Reed View Post
    ((I am going to assume that you mean modem. I'm not trying to nitpick terminology, but a router has nothing to do with internet access so your point would be moot otherwise.))
    For a fair number of ISPs and service types, there is no difference between "modem" and "router"; they are the same device. Other types of internet service, there is no modem at all. The actual term of 'modem' has been stretched a bit over the years, so it can get hazy even from a technical standpoint, nevermind the end user's understanding. This also isn't directly relevant to the current discussion, except to correct a moment of arrogance.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Morgan Reed View Post
    Why do I get the feeling that someone on the internet is trying to prove me wrong, when I haven't expressed my personal belief on a matter?
    You're making falsifiable statements and people are taking up the opportunity to do so.

    You're taking up an absurd position that either you believe yourself and are attempting to distance yourself from so that people can't call you directly on believing an absurd thing (which means on some level you know it's absurd), or you're advocating an absurd cause fully aware of how absurd it is.

    And see this?
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Morgan Reed View Post
    Then you might be unique. But in the end, I'm sorry to say, it really doesn't matter how you see it.
    It doesn't matter how Grouchy sees it. It doesn't matter how Chad sees it. It doesn't matter how I see it. Fun fact! It also doesn't matter how YOU see it. People believe whatever they want to believe, but you know, some of us like to stick to facts where we can.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Morgan Reed View Post
    Hold on. CoH:Freedom changes that though. The easiest way to interpret (from a common consumer perspective) what Paragon is saying is "we no longer require you to have a subscription to play." I realize this isn't 100% accurate. I'm not talking about the accuracy of the interpretation.
    That's exactly what they're saying. You no longer have to have a subscription to play. "Play" and "all of the possible toys you might use in the sandbox" are separate things. Some toys are being kept on the shelf for the renters, or those who take the time to purchase their own.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Morgan Reed View Post
    So there will be some customers that will fall back to their programmed belief that purchase = ownership, and come into Freedom believing they have everything they bought.
    They will be insulted ("slapped in the face") for having to "pay twice for content they already bought" when having to pay (even if it is in Paragon Points they were given before Freedom launched) for access to some ATs, and even some Powersets, that they believe they already bought.
    People believe lots of things. There's only so much you can do about it.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Morgan Reed View Post
    Or not. Maybe I am wrong about the number of people that feel that way about the game.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Morgan Reed View Post
    I'm wrong.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Morgan Reed View Post
    You can't, and aren't, speaking for those that see it as I have laid out. That they purchase content when buying the game, and are renting server time with their subscription fee.

    And those are the people that need to be understood. I'm not saying they need to be agreed with, or even catered to. Just understood.
    So, you're the champion of the demonstrably wrong? The world works this way. It isn't just software, and you're railing against a non-existent injustice that will only be perceived by the selfish or the ignorant.
  20. Quote:
    Originally Posted by erall View Post
    And 10 bucks for a costume slot. Which is UTTER BS.

    Over at that other game they're playing catchup with, stume slots are account-wide, and are 140 tokens. 500 of which cost 6.50. Do the math yourself. An AT is 920- less than $12

    I seriously hope they revisit their price points, because frankly these are fail.
    I think you're also failing to take into account the massive amounts of free character slots we get as VIPs. 12 slots per server, not counting bonus slots we get for being veterans, or owning Going Rogue?

    That one costume slot for $10 applies to a hypothetical lot of characters. Even if you're just filling up your free slots on a couple servers.
  21. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodwynd View Post
    Yes I agree things change....

    I remember the Catherdral of Pain was an I6 boxed feature....that went live when???

    Just sayin...

    The devs are going to have a hard time convincing some premium people they own what they purchase after Freedom when people bought everything prior to Freedom and VIPs only will get to keep it.
    When you bought a CoH or CoV box? You bought one thing:

    You bought an ACCOUNT.

    You may have bought a CoH account, you may have bought a CoV account, you may have used a box to add a feature to an account you already had..

    But all you bought was an account. Everything else? Was provided through your PAID ACCESS. You know. That subscription thing.

    So. Congratulations. You are getting what you claim you're asking for.
  22. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    Or to put it another way, it may be that the fundamental difference between PnP games and MMOs is not the human GM or the rules or the computer technology, its that in PnP games the players and the GM ultimately craft the experience in conjunction, whereas in an MMO because of the sheer number of players all of them submit to the will of a singular authority to dictate the experience. These are two logically incompatible experiences, driven by scale. An MMO played with PnP-like participation fragments into many small experiences rather than one consensus one. A PnP game played with MMO-like participation becomes too authoritarian within small groups. That's a difference in psychology not technology and may not be ultimately resolvable by technology.
    I'd like to point out a third example: Organized PnP play. A few years ago, I participated in the RPGA Living Greyhawk, and this effectively produced a D&D "MMO", where the same adventures were played by players in different locations, an ongoing (shared) storyline, and ... GMs were expected to adhere to the rules in the same way as all other GMs. There were no houserules, there were not "Well, sure, we'll go with that."

    GMs were expected to go by the Rules As Written, except where the organized play notes for the campaign explicitly stated otherwise (so these were really just revisions to the core rules, for the purposes of play).

    That said, it WAS still PnP, so there was flexibility in how players could approach things, within the character construction and scenario limits.

    It was a fairly effective and enjoyable middle ground between MMO and traditional PnP play. I enjoyed it quite a lot until the release of 4E forced discontinuation of the campaign I was participating in.
  23. Void_Huntress

    For Zwillinger

    Don't know why people are getting so worked up.

    Looks indistinguishable from random teenage pop stars to me.
  24. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodwynd View Post
    Pure logic. The problem is that you all refuse to see things from the outside in and are only looking at things from the inside out.
    Refuse to see things from the outside in?

    ... dude, I'm looking at your own statements and the contradictions YOU are making.

    You're talking about people refusing to resubscribe because they can't get something without subscribing. That's what I responded to.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodwynd View Post
    Part of the reason to go to a F2P system was to generate a new source of revenue...correct?

    My assumption would be yes.

    Now, assuming that yes is the correct choice, current subscribers, although still very important aren't going to drive this game forward.
    You are wrong here. The free portion is a loss leader. The Premium portions are a combination of additional teaser and a way to keep around folks who otherwise can't or won't subscribe, but are still willing to give SOME money. The developers want more SUBSCRIBERS. That's the goal. They'll also settle for "Here's $15 every now and then" as a happy medium between "subscribing" and "you get no money at all from me".


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodwynd View Post
    Based on the lack of development, I think it is clear that the current subscription model isn't generating enough to be nearly as viable as NCSoft would like. So attempt the F2P.
    Lack of what? Going Rogue had one of the largest content infusions the game has seen since release. Maybe the largest, I don't know how big the early issue stuff was, since I came in years later. Either way, development ramped up sharply after the NCsoft acquisition, dramatically so. Even if you set aside the Incarnate system as a whole, we've gotten quite a bit in I19/I20 as well, and are looking to get a lot in I21.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodwynd View Post
    Now, based on how the game is, they can't separate different editions. Therefore there is no distinction between CoH/CoV/GR in terms of purchase power. So there is no added stream of revenue coming in from New Free Players other than the hope that they sub based on all the free content. Now the problem with the free content is that based on newer games, the engine is dated and the missions are repetitive.
    We've already been told they're working on the new player experience. Praetoria showed us they can do quite a lot with the 'dated' engine, comparing reasonably favorably to more recent games.

    I personally find CoX missions LESS repetitive than some of the competition. Opinions clearly differ.

    Further, almost no newer games offer some of the things CoX has, or do it incompletely, or do it in a different gameplay context. The costume and character customization is a huge selling point to some folks, dated engine or not.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodwynd View Post
    Now the premium player has played before and has some history with the game. But for reasons unknown the allowed the subscription to lapse. They played for 24 months and loved MMs and Controllers....they can't play them because they are locked until at least 36 months of vet time. Alright - no big deal they can always purchase them right. Maybe, so they keep playing and see that there has been some cool stuff added to the game. The biggest new feature is locked however so the Premium player says...nah I can live without Incarnates. The game still looks old and the Devs are as obstinate as ever. But the new MMO is right around the corner, why spend 15 bucks a month on something old when the only I can go buy a new game?
    If those are your priorities, go spend money on something new.

    You aren't entitled to getting everything you care about for free. If you're happy with MOST of the free stuff and there's Just One More Thing you want that costs money, then you decide to either spend that money, or to do without.

    That's how reasonable people do these things.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodwynd View Post
    At the end of the day and at the end of the thread, only time will truly tell what will happen. I for one will likely allow my account to lapse and I will simply play Premium account and roll a MM just for fun since I have 40 something months of vet before I lapsed years ago. But, once I get to that point, I have enough in the game to play that I can roll a new toon and go 1 -50 with little to no care in the world and it doesn't cost me a dime. Explain to me why I would want to resub??
    If you don't want to resub, that's fine. That's YOUR decision to make, and the devs are enabling you to make that decision.

    If you personally aren't interested in the premium purchase or VIP-only content, then... okay. Nobody really cares either way. You are one person out of quite a lot more.

    What Paragon is after are the folks who try this and go, "I want more of this." and either start buying things as a Premium customer, or hopefully go all the way to VIP. (or go VIP and start buying things on top.)

    The purchasable stuff is a bit of a red herring, by the way: They've been letting us buy things for a while now. They're just combining that with the indefinite trial program.

    I know why I am keeping subbed, despite having relatively tight income. I know why some of my friends will probably be resubbing, either soon, or soon after I21.

    I also know that I'll be able to get some other friends in the door now that the barrier to entry is "Do I meet the minimum requrements and can I spare the hard drive space?"

    I'm willing to bet some of those will become premium at the minimum. We might get more VIPs out of it. We might not.

    Further, I know why some of my friends are unsubscribing, both because they'll get everything they need from I21 as a premium player, and because they're moving on to something different.

    That's life.
  25. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodwynd View Post
    Whew...5 pages later. I just don't know that by giving away the majority of the game for free if there is enough there with the dated engine, the repetitiveness of the missions and the lack of substantial end game content if there is enough there to get people to subscribe for long periods of time. Haven spoken to some that let their accounts lapse, they are not happy with the locking of ATs so that is already a -1 for a resub.
    Wait wait.

    People who AREN'T subscribing, because they can't get something without subscribing, are refusing to re-subscribe?

    If they could get it without paying, would they then subscribe even though they would then not need to subscribe to get it?

    How can you not see the irrationality here?