je_saist

He doesn't have one. He sent me a nastygram PM a while back that earned himself an ignore from me, and I've come to determine from various posts on the forums that who-ever at the keyboard for that player isn't actually interested in helping the game to grow or expand.

***

I'm fairly sure the player behind that avatar does not understand that Rogues should be able to do HeroSide task forces and get merits for those Task Forces in the upcoming Going Rogue expansion. I'm also not sure the player understands that my original posts is based on a subjective proposition that the developers are looking at, or wanting to, revamp more existing content in the near future. I don't have any proof that other Task Forces or strike forces are up for revamps, and at this stage, I'm not sure any of the development staff can comment on plans that may be 8 or 10 months out.

I think setting up a consistent mechanism for accessing this older in-game as new revamped content is introduced is something the developers should look at or consider, and the Positron TF would be a good place to start.

I meant to mention Calvin Scott since it was in the global channel discussion that spawned the original post. The closest I got though was Mr. Miller's rumination on bringing back retired task forces. I believe Mr. Miller mentioned Calvin Scott by name, although converting the Cathedral of Pain Trial to an Ouroboros TF tends to come up a slight bit more often on these forums.

Then why do you play the game? If you think what the devs do is crappy, how about you cancel your account and find something else to play?

since Depth of Field is not supported on either the Nvidia-glx or Fglrx drivers, it took me a moment to realize what you were talking about. However, there is actually a separate section for Bloom, and Bloom amount, in the advanced settings, as well as desaturation effects.

There's just one big problem with this whole idea. PvP and PvE gameplay are not the same thing. The slotting and power choices for PvP and PvE gameplay are not the same either.

PvE play is centered around Inherent Imbalance. Each Archtype has inherent strengths and weaknesses, and each is balanced to play with those strengths and weakness's. PvE play puts emphasis on team efforts, where team buffs provide a clear advantage.

PvP play, as of Issue 13, is centered around Inherent Balance. Each Archtype is brought into rough line with a corresponding effect type. All damage is based on the timing of the attack to completion, rather than being based on an archtype modifier. Ergo, a Corruptor and a Blaster with the same attack, should do pretty much the same damage, defiance and scourge aside. All archtypes, aside from Tanks, receive resistances to attacks, and mez protection is removed, leaving only mez effect resistance. The focus of PvP play means that certain powers, such as the buffing shields from thermal radiation, force field, cold domination, and sonic resonance, are simply wasted powers for a defender or corruptor.

Certain powers, such as Focused Accuracy and Tactics, that a player may skip for a PvE character, might become critical in PvP play. Certain IO's or sets that boost accuracy and perception, but are ineffective in PvE play, are valuable in PvP play.

One of the things I know Castle gets is that in order for PvP play to be successful in City of Heroes, it has to be a different game than the PvE play. Issue 13 was a step in the right direction for where PvP play needs to go if it remains a part of CoH.

***

Let me put it like this. What is being asked here is this:

You are playing Everquest. Fantasy MMORPG, with elves, dwarfs, ogres, and lots of magic. You get sent on a quest to recover some treasure for a dragon.

Only, to complete this quest, you've got to exit Everquest... and start up Planetside. You've now gone from a fantasy MMO to a first person shooter... and the mission you were given from Everquest is to take a Tower on Ishundar held by the Terran Republic, hold it for 30 minutes... and only if you've held the tower successfully for 30 minutes can you log out of Planetside...

to then log back in to Everquest and complete the quest.

Yes, I'm hoping this example demonstrates just how ludicrous the idea of having a Task Force / Strike Force with a PvP crossover is. It is the same thing as asking somebody to log out and go play a completely different game.

***

That split, that is what puts an immediate kibosh on any plans for PvP enabled task forces. Yes, you could technically get around the split in game design by having one build of you're character for PvE play, and the second build for PvP play, and yes, a significant percentage of the minority of the game that participates in PvP Play do take advantage of dual builds in this fashion. That does not mean that the vast majority of the paying player base is willing to make a PvP slotted second build. It's far more common among the game's player base to have a maxed build for level 50 content, and a build optimized for low level task forces such as Synapse, Moonfire, or Hess.

The idea of having a PvP-enabled Task Force also presumes that a significant amount of the player-base wants to participate in PvP-content. Well, the PvP players hate it when I keep bringing this up, but the player-base just isn't there. It has never been there. PvP play, in City of Heroes, has consistently had the appeal of strawberry preserved scrambled eggs.

***

As to whether or not the idea of Task Forces that change the World of Paragon is a good idea... well, I think it is. One of the features of Richard Garriot's Tabula Rasa was a story-based system where your actions in instanced environments had certain real world accomplishments. Lets say in a mission you took down a Radio Tower or Radar Station used by the Bane. For a short time afterwards, Bane Assaults would be dialed back as they (in line with what you did), recovered from your actions. Sadly, the promise of instanced affects on the mass-world was something that never really worked in the game, and was abandoned shortly after launch. I don't need to go into why Tabula Rasa crashed and burned... but really... leaving developers in charge who listened to a vocal minority and didn't have a grasp on what the game was... qualifies as one of the dumbest things Richard Garriot has ever done.

One of the problems with City of Heroes, and it's a perception problem, is that events that affect the game world are already seen as annoying. Anybody whose watching the Hero-Zone event messages can pretty much say with authority that no matter which server you are on, Zombie Raids, Halloween Event, and Alien Invasions aren't actually that common. However, because of the way City of Heroes is structured, there's probably going to be at least one player doing one mission, that is going to be interrupted or interfered with by the event.

Ergo, adding future task forces that change what the game world does may not be... such a good idea.

Adding Task Forces that change what you can do in the game world... well... that's a different matter. I like the idea of the developers gating additional story content or zones behind various task forces. Just because I like it, doesn't mean anybody else does.

oig. The short version is: Our Engine Does Not Work Like That

Champions Engine works like that because it's not our engine, and hasn't been our engine since about a third or so through the development of Marvel Universe Online. Implementing a throw-able objects system would require significant changes to underlying world geometry as well as significant animation work. BAB's and Nelson would have to create an entirely new animation set not only for each body type, but would need also need to work with the coders to implement a grapple system. Remember, in City of Heroes you are effectively a bubble sphere to the game world. This is why objects that players can "interact" with in Mayhem Missions and Statesman's Task Force can only be attacked, but not actually "moved" from their places.

Now, if Paragon Studios got the money together to spend the next 3 years writing a new game engine for a new game, I'd be a little torqued off if they didn't include throwable objects. In the current game, and the current game engine? I'm not sure I can think of a way throwable objects can be implemented without raising the minimum processing requirements, something the development staff is largely reluctant to do.

See above, their engine is not our engine. Also, keep in mind that just because Champions Online does something, that does not automatically make it a good idea, or an idea that our developers should look at. If anything, the trend of Champions Online is such that our developers are probably better off using Champions Online as a template of what NOT TO DO.

Vehicles in City of Heroes has also been shot down on multiple occasions. Memphis_Bill has some of the better torpedoing posts around, such as this one from 4 months ago: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...62&postcount=6

His best known one I think originated on 5/16/09: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...6&postcount=12

Suffice to say, vehicles won't be happening anytime soon, and probably not ever in this game.

Okay. All 3 of you need to drop by this site: http://www.khronos.org/

You'd be looking for this page: http://www.khronos.org/opengl/

City of Heroes leverages the OpenGL Application Programming Interface (API) for it's graphics support. This means that the base graphics engine is not tied to the operating system. Developers who write to the OpenGL API do not have to worry about what Operating System their graphics code will be run on. All they have to worry about is whether or not the physical hardware and drivers for that Operating System support the calls of the OpenGL API.

Currently ATi/AMD maintains an identical OpenGL stacks across all of their directly supported operating systems. It is presumed that Nvidia also maintains an identical OpenGL driver stack across it's operating systems, but Nvidia has never exactly confirmed this. Intel and Via (S3 Chrome) do not maintain identical OpenGL drivers across all of their operating systems.

Because OpenGL is crossplatform, graphics code written to the OpenGL 3.2 specification will produce the exact same image providing the driver correctly processes the information. OpenGL 3.2 is roughly analogous to Microsoft's DirectX 11. Since OpenGL 3.2 is crossplatform, this means that say, a game, coded against OpenGL 3.2 would give the exact same image in Windows 9x, Windows NT5, Windows NT6, Apple OSX, and any distribution of Linux with OpenGL 3.2 enabled drivers.

A game coded against Microsoft DirectX 11 will only give an identical image on systems that support DirectX 11. When placed on a platform that does have the DirectX 11 API, a game would have to fall back to an earlier version of DirectX.

This is why DirectX is a multi-billion dollar mistake for the commerical games industry. Using DirectX increases development time to work on extra rendering paths against different operating systems, and even then, causes additional work at a later date since DirectX is not supported on Wii, Linux*, Apple OSX*, Iphone, Android, Playstation 2, or Playstation 3.


*Okay, officially supported. You can stop pointing at WINE, Cider, and Cedega now.


If the developers started on City of Heroes 2 today, they would probably continue using OpenGL as the API, so discussions about which OS the game would run on are moot.

Depends on what you mean by recover. If you mean recover as in firing you're nuke and getting right back into the fight, the answer is none of these. The fatigue intentionally counters endurance boosting effects, for a set length of time.

There are only two ways to get endurance back immediately after a crash.

• Pop a blue inspiration.
• Put a performance shifter proc in Stamina and pray it kicks in.

***

If you mean by recover as in wait for endurance recovery to kick back in, all of the endurance recovery powers are just about equal.

***

Now, you might be told that other archtypes can help you recover from your nuke a bit quicker. This is a both true, and not true.

Radiation Emmission'sAccelerate Metabolism, Force Field's Insulation Shield, and Storm Summoning O2 Boost all offer Resistance to Recovery Rate. At a first glance then, these buffs should be able to help counter the endurance drain from a nuke blast, until you look at the numbers.

Using the Defender numbers, Force Field offers 37.5% resistance at level 1, and 86.5% resistance at level 50. Accelerate Metabolism starts at 28.3%, and caps at 64.88%. O2 Boost starts at 37.5%, and eventually will offer 86.5%. If you stacked all of these on one player, they'd have 237.88% resistance at level 50.

All ranged full nukes, all nukes that drain endurance... have at a minimum recovery rate loss of 1000%.

So even if you have got team-members that offer resistance to endurance drain, the system is specifically designed so that they can't prevent you from loosing endurance.

There is one player power though that can fill you up on endurance immediately after a nuke. Ask a kinetics about Transference.

make sure you go /bug this on the test server.

Something to remember about Crytek is that their engines are horribly inefficient. Back when Far Cry hit, Epic Software was able to generate the same types of visual affects at equivalent resolutions with about 1/3 higher frame-rates. Ergo, the Unreal Engine was doing the same work for about 2/3 the processing load. When Crysis hit, again, Epic was doing the equivalent visual effects at equivalent resolutions... while managing higher frame-rates.

While ID hasn't been vocal about the performance of Tech 5, we do know that their Tech 3 and Tech 4 engines were capable of pushing equivelent visual effects to the Crytek engines... again... with higher framerates, indicating a lower processor load.

While Crytek is known for wowing the press with it's visual effects on each new engine or game, there was a reason only one other game not made by Crytek used the original CryEngine... Okay, that game was AION... but the term HEAVILY MODIFIED has been tossed around a lot. Okay, CryEngine two saw a bit better success, with a couple of Independent developers picking up a license: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryEngine_2

Anyways, using anything by Crytek as a performance benchmark is sort of like using anything from Futuremark as a performance benchmark. Outside of a series of specific applications, the actual code looks, and performs, like nothing somebody working on a mass-market targeted commercial property would use.

I hate to disagree with you, but Nvidia was already abandoning the AMD chipset market when Intel was bringing the I7 architecture to market. Nvidia was looking to get out of the chipset market, and simply used Intel's positioning on I7 licensing as an excuse to stop producing chipsets. Licensing SLI technology would be more profitable to Nvidia than to continue to make their own chips.

There was just one slight problem.

There's no secret code. According to Intel engineers, they didn't have to make any changes to X58 to support SLI. Nvidia just had to allow the setup in the official drivers. Various users have been using leaked, beta, or hacked drivers since Crossfire motherboards started hitting the market to run two Nvidia cards atop an ATi chipset, or Intel chipsets that support Crossfire.

***

Now, I will admit there is probably merit to the idea that Intel wanted to be the only game in town with chipset support on the I7. Intel never played nice with Via, S3, ULI, or anybody else in the chipset market. However, looking at Nvidia's behavior and their choice to stop developing for AMD's platform, I stand by my statement Nvidia was trying to get out of chipsets.

The writing for chipsets has actually been on the wall since 2003 when AMD started selling Athlon64's with integrated memory controllers. Prior to the Athlon64 on AMD, and up to the I7 on Intel, processors have / had external memory controllers. Several years ago Nvidia's memory controllers were the best in the market, and helped AtlhonXp's trounce the Pentium 4 processor lineup.

With memory controllers moving onto the processor, chipsets were largely relegated to IO support functions. This meant that the cost of the physical chip went down, as well as the profit on the chip. From appearances, Nvidia tried to keep prices up on their chipsets with SLI certification and licensing... which was really nothing more than allowing a particular chip to be used at the software driver level.

With Intel finally going to an integrated memory controller, the profit margins for chipsets were headed for the toilet.

Then there was the other problem. Fusion and Project Larrabee's integrated development. Both Intel and AMD are launching processors, this year, with integrated GPU's. These hybrid CPU / GPU units will pretty much take over the low end market. OEM motherboard prices will go down as engineers no longer have to plan for graphics support from a northbridge, through the processor, to a memory controller, and back.

This means that the current crop of low-end computers with integrated chipsets will change. An OEM like Dell, HP, or Gateway isn't going to make a computer with an extra motherboard GPU with the associated circuitry when they can save $5 or more per system on the hybrid CPU/GPU setups.

Since Nvidia isn't in the x86 CPU market, their cash cow of Nforce is pretty much gutted.

Ergo: from my perspective, Nvidia saw that their chipset market was going to evaporate, regardless of whether or not they had licenses to the system bus components.

... you paid $100 for a 9400 GT?

... please tell me you aren't in the US.

The starting price for a 9400 GT is $40. If you paid $100 for it, you paid $60 over the retail value of the card. You quite literally, PAID MORE THAN DOUBLE WHAT THE CARD IS WORTH!!!

If you're paying $100, you'd be looking at GTS 250's and RadeonHD 4850's, NOT 9400 GT's.

So first thing, if you can, send that video card back and get something worth your money.

Second thing, yes, it's probably the VGA cable.

ai. I suspect that as well. I had a similar problem with a component switch dropping signal on me.

Okay. Fair enough. Lack of direction was what killed Tabula Rasa as well.

That being said... I don't think I made the analogy / link quite clear. Give me a moment to work it out and try to say what I said the first time, but not as clear as I thought the implication was.

***

Okay. Here goes. What I meant to imply isn't how the statement was apparently read.

I'm not laying the failing of these games solely on lifetime subscriptions, although that seems to be the impression that was taken from this quote. I'm laying the blame on faulty management. Lifetime subscriptions are symptoms of the management's inability to manage a game. I don't think Bill Roper or his lieutenants quite worked their way around what their marketing group was saying with lifetime subscriptions when they introduced those with Hellgate. When Lifetime subs were announced for Champions Online, it was a flash back to the problems with Hellgate London. Many of the same marketing tricks and promotions that Bill Roper ran with Hellgate were repeated with Champions Online, and met with pretty much the same lack of success.

When I see players, now, bringing up I want lifetime subscriptions... I don't get the feeling they accurately have a picture of how the companies that made these lifetime subscriptions popular are actually running. Flagship Studios shot itself in the foot, pulled out a howitzer, and then shot the ground at their feet. Between Cryptic Studio's plan to let CoH whither and die in the face of Marvel Universe Online, the loss of the Marvel License, the loss of a profitable game, the pickup of the dirt cheap Champions License, the near immediate abandonment of Champions Online at launch in favor of another game, and the talk of yet a third MMO in development, and Cryptic Studios is up for the Most Incompetent Senior Management award. Infogrames... well... just take a look at their wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infogra...ertainment,_SA If there is a company that defines Situation Normal, All ****** Up, it's Infogrames. For all their acquisitions you'd think they'd be able to land some success, but Infogrames makes John Romero's Ion Storm look like a well run, financially efficient, on-time provider of Triple A Class games. All insult intended, it takes effort to make the studio behind Daikatana look good.

I'm sure Infogrames does not understand the MMO market, and I'm not entirely sure anybody who was left at Cryptic after the NCSoft buyout understands the MMO market. The failure of Hellgate London, and the current failing of Champions Online are largely due to management that just doesn't have a ruddy clue.

Not happening.

Brutes have a base HP of around 1500 with a cap around 3200 hp. Scrappers start around 1300, and cap at 2400; while stalkers Stalkers start around 1200 and cap at 1600. Ignoring IO boosts, a regen scrapper can get around 1.5%-1.6% regeneration just on SO's using the Health, Fast Healing, and Physical Perfection powers.

Against the 1300 base hp a scrapper can turn in a base regen rate of around 19 to 20 hp per second. Against the 2400 cap, a scrapper can turn in a regen rate of 36hp per second to 40hp per second.

After cranking Instant Healing and Integration, a scrapper can hit around 6.8% regeneration just on SO's. A scrapper can turn in a regen value of 84hp per second at the 1300 base, or 160hp per second at the 2400 cap.

That cap isn't exactly out of reach on scrappers either. An SO slotted regen scrapper can hit 2200 hp easily with dull pain.

Once you start adding in IO boosts, things can get really ludicrous. A couple of builds I'm aware of can max the Numina 12% regeneration boost, and max the 10% regeneration boost, for an additional base 110% regeneration, never minding the Numina and Regenerative Tissue procs. In my head I can already picture regen scrappers with maxed hp cap and an 8.00% of HP regeneration rate. 200 hp per second isn't exactly out of the question for a Regeneration Scrapper.

***

Now, port that set to the Brutes. Imagine a 6.8% base regen rate against 3200 hp. That brute would be doing 217 hp... per second.. plus. Work the regen rates and the procs, and 260+ hp... per second... would be within a brutes reach.

That's archvillain territory, and that's why Brutes won't be getting regeneration. It quite literally would be game breaking.

So you better start caring about why some sets aren't going to be proliferated.



6.97 - .17

Okay, Socket 775 chipset. I can be pretty sure in telling you that no, your motherboard probably won't support Crossfire. Nvidia did not open up SLI licensing until Intel launched the I7, and Nvidia decided to get out of the x86 chipset market.

Ergo, you probably have an Nvidia Nforce chipset, and Nvidia doesn't allow Crossfire setups on their chipsets.


With Ultra Mode launching in April, and the engineers saying that multiple GPU setups aren't delivering the performance gains you would expect, I would suspect that Multi-GPU probably isn't going to help that much on Ultra-Mode's launch.

I expect that with time, SLI and Crossfire setups will offer performance gains, but if you are buying with an eye towards the game...

I'd actually recommend buying with an eye further towards the future. I've gone over, multiple times now, in this thread why I think buying Nvidia, right now, is a rip off outside of the ~$100 GTS 250 card.

***

Now, if you can wait a couple more months, to when Ultra Mode actually arrives, Nvidia should be pushing Fermi cards, the GF 100, into retail. What we don't know right now is what Fermi's price point is going to be, nor what it's gaming performance will be.

We can infer from Fermi's die size at 3billion transistors, that it's about 50% more expensive for TSMC to make than the RadeondHD 5870 GPU. We can also infer from Fermi's die size that if it has the same clock speeds as the 5870, it would be anywhere from 30% to 100% hotter than the 5870 GPU depending on what those transistors are doing.

We also have the inference from the recent unveiling of operational GF 100 cards that the clock-speeds aren't actually that fast, and gaming performance isn't that good. Every single system Nvidia had running was running in SLI mode. While this might seem like good PR on the surface, the possibility was raised, and never countered by Nvidia, that the cards had to be running in SLI to manage passable frame-rates.

Barring anything else, we know then that Fermi is going to be more expensive to manufacture than the RadeonHD 5870, which in turn means that GF 100 cards are going to more expensive than RadeonHD 5870 cards. If Nvidia goes after the same price points, they'll be repeating the problem they have now: where the GTX 2xx series is physically more expensive to make than both the existing RadeonHD 4x00 series and 5x00 series cards, and Nvidia won't be able to offer competitive price / performance ratios.

With a price point that has to be higher than the RadeonHD 5870, and a good chance of performance lower than a 5870... Fermi might resemble something else that sailed and sunk.

No I don't mean PvP in CoH, I mean the Titanic. (oh come on, who didn't see that line coming?)

****

Anyways, with Fermi pretty much a non-factor at this point, if you've got the money, the RadeonHD 5870 is going to be the best long term solution if you are buying right now.