bekkar

A belated addendum:

Check out this other selection from Sirlin's book: How Far Should You Go to Win? It covers much of my background for what I've said in this thread, such as his espousing blatant bug-exploiting and why PvP in MMO's is not something to which you should apply his advice. He mentions the tendency for "the scrubs" to be right about some things and how they're not designed as "legitimate competitive games".

Really an essential chapter if we're talking about Playing to Win in an MMO context.

You are not drawing an important distinction, Talen_Lee. I'm not referring to the "you cheated, you used inspirations" crowd. I'm referring to the "I won't TP someone into a hole in the map geometry in order to win" crowd**. If I did not make that clear, I apologize--but it's important to note that there is a distinction here, one which even the article at hand noted in passing.

The style of PvP that Sirlin's article proposes is one would TP an opponent into a hole in the geometry, and not care a whit about the fact that it's clearly not supposed to exist. In that approach, if the game allows it, it's valid--even when it was clearly not intended to be used that way. Intention is irrelevant to the style of play he champions--only the limitations of the game and the restrictions of the tournament matter.

Some don't play that way, and prefer to avoid those things which are clearly not intended gameplay, because they are playing the game as intended. They will lose to those who play the game as implemented, because they are playing with additional restrictions. This does not make them "bad at the game", it just means they are playing a more restricted (and, incidentally, less likely to get you banned!) game.

I would also note, as a point of interest, that the author has directly stated on at least one instance that he was referring to a specific category of games which does not include MMO's when he wrote the linked article. He was specifically referring to games designed from the ground up as PvP games, and had a strong emphasis on tournament/professional play.

Incidentally, I do play to win in the sense of the cited article, in this and in other games. I just understand those who play differently from me, and do not go out of my way to insult them for it. They play their game, I'll play mine.

**I am not aware of a geometry exploit that still works, but it's an example directly from this game's history and relevant to the point at hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Then congratulations, you're bad at competition. Enjoy feeding the War Axe/Dark Armour zoners.

[/ QUOTE ] It's a fundamentally different approach to competition--it doesn't make him "bad at competition" for taking a different approach. That's a pretty myopic view of the situation.

Some like to play the game the way it is implemented, regardless of how it was intended.
Some like to play the game the way it was intended, regardless of how it is implemented.

The former will always have a huge advantage over the latter in informal settings, such as all CoX PvP, due to having less restrictive rules. That is why in actual gaming tournaments, which we do not really have here, rules are spelled out rather than left to interpretation (that is, by the way, something Sirlin himself states--not something I'm inventing).

Both the one who plays the game as intended and the one who plays the game as implemented are "playing to win", the difference is that they're playing two different games that happen to coincide.

Neither is cheating at their own game, nor bad at their own game, and most of these pointless and (frankly) offensive debates come from a basic lack of understanding of others' motivations. To either group, I reiterate--your opponent isn't bad at the game, he's playing a different game that happens to cross over with yours.

[ QUOTE ]
Could people get behind this wording:
[ QUOTE ]
Ice Control is lagging in AoE control effectiveness when compared to the other primaries. The primary cause for this is that its three fast recharging AoE controls (Arctic Air, Shiver, and Ice Slick) are not boosted in an appreciable way by Domination. Secondarily, Ice Control's recharge debuffs lost significant effectiveness when they were ported over from Controller sets, thus upsetting the balance of effectiveness between the shared primaries. Finally, the recharge debuffs of these powers are unenhanceable, making it even more difficult for Ice Control to catch up.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ] Ice Slick is identical for Controllers and Dominators. I'd hesitate to include it since it makes sense for that power to not be affected by Domination--it doesn't come with the sans-domination nerf of other powers built into it.

Something like...
Ice Control is lagging in AoE control effectiveness when compared to the other primaries. The primary cause for this is that two of its fast recharging AoE controls (Arctic Air and Shiver) are not boosted in an appreciable way by Domination, despite the fact that Ice Control's recharge debuffs lost significant effectiveness when they were ported over from Controller sets, thus upsetting the balance of effectiveness between the shared primaries. Since recharge debuffs are unenhanceable, this makes it difficult for Ice Control to catch up.
Would be very easy to get behind, though--the issue with Arctic Air / Shiver coming prenerfed but not being boosted by Domination is probably a significant concern.


Edit:[ QUOTE ]
The list of status effects which Domination protects against is missing knock* and repel.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you referring to a text error or saying those are not protected against? I'm assuming "text error", but I wanted to check.

Especially all those avenging angel characters that go around smiting evildoers. That's totally against what the Bible teaches!

Belief that an 8-year-old who plays an M-rated game then does something stupid has been wronged by the game developers should be sufficient justification for involuntary sterilization and referrals for any surviving offspring to a public guardian. Someone with that approach to parenting simply shouldn't be allowed to be a parent...it's not fair to their children to be raised by someone who won't take responsibility for them.

List this opinion among the dozen reasons why I can never be elected to public office.

Interesting. I was under the impression, and I'll have to search this evening, that a previous post had said that it was possible but prohibitively difficult to fix. Apparently, they've found another way...although the fact that it's 9 months later without the change going through makes me wonder.

The possibility of an increased animation time for Transfusion is kind of meh, but we'll have to see what happens.

I believe the "mob can't die during the activation" issue is well known, but was determined to be very difficult to fix given the limitations of the game engine. In other words, I think it's been looked at, and was given a "ouch, sorry, can't help ya"

I consider this unlikely, as Kinetics is not a weak set, but nor do I think making the slow/-recharge aspect a small AoE would make the set overpowering. As it would not increase the buff aspect, it would be a fairly small change. However, with the change being that small and there being no real problem to address, I have to question why the developers would bother.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you know.....they took out every 5th Column reference in the game except for Atlas' plaque?

[/ QUOTE ]And then put a fair number of them back in?

[/ QUOTE ] And furthermore...
That some were never removed in the first place?
That jokes about the switch are currently in the game?

The Council->5th switch was big enough, it really doesn't need to be exaggerated to be worth mentioning.

You weren't whining, so don't take this as a personal criticism, but it does make sense for it to give very little advantage. That's been what they've done with previous purchasable bonus things.

Some temp powers having an unintended end crash would be an interesting possibility...

[ QUOTE ]
5.2.2 Assassin Strike (AS)

AS is the cornerstone power of the Villain Stalker archetype. Stalkers are a very popular Villain character choice, and once you've been on the receiving end of an AS you will understand why. This mega-attack can kill a squishy in one blow, and when performed by an Energy Melee stalker can easily stun its target. It must be delivered from hiding or set up with the Stalker ability Placate.

[/ QUOTE ] About that highlighted section, are you sure you're not thinking of Total Focus? I don't think any of the AS have additional effects on them, EM included.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll admit that i found this interesting:[ QUOTE ]
Vyktor: I guess it depends on where you look. I know a couple of, one villain group in particular, they want everyone on prestige. And they basically hand out Infamy to buy their stuff.



Statesman: We though that would be regular behavior. But it just isn’t. It isn’t, for whatever reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]But the reason we've been given as to why we can't trade more than 100k at a time is specifically to deter this.

I'm confused.

[/ QUOTE ] Next, on Mysterious Mysteries...

(actually, this sort of thing pops up now and then--elements designed on one premise run into elements designed with exactly the opposite one, with no real explanation of how north becomes south on tuesdays.)

For pets, their effective rank appears to vary based on what the pet itself is, if memory serves.
For mastermind minions, their rank is equivalent to lieutenant--they con one higher than their level.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, KL. That's exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bradd, thanks for clarifying that, based on your highest toon being level 33, you do not presume to offer build or tactics advice.

[/ QUOTE ] You know, I think you're trying to rub it in, but really it seems like you're offended over having made a relatively simple mistake.

Might be time to let it go and move on with the "dominators suck" part of today's discussion. And yesterday's, incidentally. Oh, and it'll be tomorrow's.

It would take a lot to kill this thread

[ QUOTE ]
Having a level 50 is not a sufficient condition to be an expert in the game, but I think it is a necessary condition -- and a fairly minimal one at that.

[/ QUOTE ] Having a level 50 is a necessary condition to comment meaningfully on issues that only affect level 50's. And only that.
Issues of basic logic can be commented on by someone who hasn't played the game at all.
Issues that pop up before level 33 can be commented on by someone who is level 33.

You are welcome to think otherwise, but be careful to not construe it as anything but your own preference.

[ QUOTE ]
You're usually better than simple insults.

[/ QUOTE ] That wasn't an insult, it was a joke specifically about the phrase he used. I thought it was kind of an obvious joke, thus the /
No need to be making it a personal thing. It's a phrase

Have you never heard "I don't want to learn...and you can't make me!"?

[ QUOTE ]
So you don't want to learn?

[/ QUOTE ] And you can't make me!!!
/obvious

[ QUOTE ]
Level 37 Fire/Energy...

[/ QUOTE ] Someone likes red numbers

Masterminds and Corruptors provide a lot of mitigation though, so unfortunately it's hard to test as those are two of the more popular AT's and likely to be in any group. The chances of you finding a team of 6 Brutes and Stalkers and convincing them to rely on 2 Dominators to keep them alive are practically nil.

Naturally, there's a perception problem there (Doms seen as weak) that biases the result, so the difficulty in forming such a team doesn't prove that it doesn't work. Now, I happen to think it would be clunky, dangerous, and a little slower, but I can't test it for the same reason.

The death with the stalker is what I was referring to when I was talking about Control being foe-based, btw. It's an inherent weakness--if you haven't mezzed him yet, you're defenseless against him.

[ QUOTE ]
How ridiculous is it? What portion of incoming damage do you think one typical dominator can prevent? One typical defender? Don't assume that we're thinking of the same numbers that you are.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, first let's assume it's not PvP or an AV. Those are gimmes, after all, since Control performs the weakest then.

So let's talk about missions instead. How many Defenders does it take for damage to be mitigated to the point that a typical team can run through at a reasonably quick speed (no need to stop to Rest, no deaths, quick kills, etc). Two, in my experience, for a full team. More makes things faster, but you're smooth sailing with two Defenders as your sole source of mitigation.

How many Dominators would it take for there to be no risk, fast killing, and no pauses? Could you do it with two Dominators as your sole source of team mitigation? Would adding more Dominators make it faster?

Support mitigates better than Control. Not only because of what I noted above, but Support does not have the liability of being 100% foe-based for its effect.

Control is useful. I like Control. Control is not, however, the superior option for team mitigation.

For fun, start comparing Dominators and Defenders. Theoretically, they should fit the same team role (primary is mitigation, secondary is offense). With how ridiculous the comparison between a Defender's mitigation and a Dominator's is, either Control would need to be boosted to high heaven or Dominators need to be flipped over--more about offense than mitigation.

Once again, not holding my breath on that happening.

Propel is kind of a special case. I can't comment on Gravity as a whole, but I do know that people have been clamoring for it to have a quicker animation since before I started playing...and it probably won't happen, if it hasn't in the last 2 years, heh.

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, even when I don't control, every time there is an ambush, I always get hit first. Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ] I would suspect the ambush is simply being smart--what's the CoV AT that doesn't have any form of passive defenses whatsover? The Dominator.

In that aspect, being an offense-based AT with only active defenses, Doms are in Blaster territory...and ask Blasters about ambushes