je_saist

*points you to: http://zerias.blogspot.com/2010/05/d...elee-tank.html

Try reading through. I took several screen-captures showing the problem with the Stun Aura.

thanks for trying to work around that

I believe that Proc Damage is based a Second timer and not a tick timer. But I'd have to go poke Black Scorpion to make sure.

heh. I actually got into a discussion with F.Grubb last year about why the Regeneration Set didn't offer any Regen Debuff Resistance. As far as I'm aware the set is under consideration for that change, but I think F.Grubb left the final decision up to Synapse and Black Scorpion.

As to the OP's suggestions... um. Okay. I am one of the one's who suggested adding DDR to the Dark Armor set. I based that request on the inclusion of a Defense power, specifically Cloak of Darkness, to the Dark Armor Set. The lack of DDR and Cloak of Darkness's low defense rating made that tiny bit of defense pretty much... pointless.

I also understand why the developers said NO to that request. The Dark Armor set was not based around a defensive play-style. The Dark Armor set was designed as a Resistance Set.

For the same reason, you are not going to get DDR on a Fire Tank. The set is designed to be Resistance Base. Like the other Resistance Armors in the game, Fire makes some trade-offs on the concept of survivability.

Dark Armor, for example, has both a constant Stun Point-Blank Area of Effect power and a Constant Fear Point-Blank Area of Effect power. While these power's do make traditional tanking difficult... if not impossible, they give Dark Armor a different sort of survivability.

Electric Armor, for example, has both a combination regeneration / heal / endurance reduction power and an endurance drain power. These powers give Electric Armor some of the best endurance management in the game, as well as a powerful mob-debuff.

Fire Armor, by those same tokens, trades off taking damage for giving damage. It's own point blank area of affect attack, Blazing Aura, does more damage than all other point blank area of effect attacks. Fire Armor also gets a superior point blank area of effect attack in Burn. While Fire Armor is not the only set with a self-revive power, Rise of the Phoenix contains a damage component, a knockback component, and a stun component.

This fundamental shift in how a set plays is something that the player themselves have to figure out how to work with. Resistance based sets such as Fire, Dark, and Electric Armor are not supposed to sit in the middle of mobs and wait out indefinite amounts of incoming damage. Resistance based sets are, by and large, designed to DO SOMETHING.

Brute:

• Blazing Aura @ 50 - 9.18 fire damage
• Lightning Field @ 50 - 8.34 energy damage
• Death Shroud @ 50 - 8.34 neg energy damage

Tank:

• Blazing Aura @ 50 - 9.79
• Lightning Field @ 50 - 8.90
• Death Shroud @ 50 - 8.90

Scrapper

• Blazing Aura @ 50 - 13.76
• Lightning Field @ 50 - 12.51
• Death Shroud @ 50 - 12.51

So yes, Blazing Aura does do more damage compared to other attacks. Granted it's not a high amount of damage, but it is still significant.

Now, as to the Op's question, I guess I don't understand the reason behind the expressed problem. What I mean is that Fire Armor is Fire Armor. It has a unique look. It has unique powers. If you don't like that look, if you don't like those powers, don't play the set, or don't take that power.

Blazing Fire is what it is. It is Fire Armor's constant damage pbaoe.

Can you get away without taking it? Sure. With a high enough base recharge you can probably have [burn] up often enough that you might not miss the damage Blazing Aura power at all. With a decent recharge you can probably also pull off Eagle's Claw and Dragon's Tail as well and not really skip a beat on overall AOE damage.

Of course you'll also be missing the micro-threat generation that helps to pull enemies around you in order to make powers like Burn and Dragon's Tail effective.

If that's a trade-off you want to make, that's up to you.

Now, as to whether or not proccing a power out is good advice... well. That depends on person to person. Somebody else did the calculations a while ago (and I can't find the post now) and determined that the available chance for procs in the attack PBAOE's would, just based on the procs activating and hitting their chances, deliver less damage than simply slotting the PBOAE for damage.

ahem: http://www.wolfire.com/humble

I also direct you to http://www.minecraft.net/download.jsp

And to http://unigine.com/

And to http://www.google.com/mobile/android/

And to http://us.playstation.com/corporate/...e-devices.html

I also direct you to:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...re-growth.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...goes-live.html


the fact is, Linux is larger than just Desktop Linux. It's on your phones, in your cars, and it's probably already installed on or came with a computer and you might not even realize it: http://www.splashtop.com/partners

It is past time for game developers to stop trying to throw Linux under a bus and pretend that it doesn't exist or that they cannot sell into Linux markets.

Let me put it another way.

Every single person who says that putting commercial games on Linux is not going to profitable, and shouldn't be done, or calls it "advocacy" ignores a crucial little factor.

Years ago a Tiny Corporation Called Microsoft had a computer operating system called DOS. There were a selection of tiny games available for DOS.

Then Microsoft did Windows 95, which allowed for even more complex games. Game developers started programming for the platform. Microsoft caught on that they had a good thing. Their platform was cheaper, and relatively easier, to produce games for than consoles from 1995. Game Developers liked Windows because they could easily upgrade hardware.

Then Microsoft did Windows 98 and started promoting DirectX 6.1 as a competitor to then mainstay SGI OpenGL.

Then Microsoft did DX7, DX8.1, and DX9... while SGI OpenGL pretty much did nothing.

The point that I'm trying to make is this: Microsoft Windows became popular for games because game developers started pushing the platform... FIRST.

Let me repeat that:

Independent Software Vendors started using the Microsoft Platform to Produce and Sell Their products... FIRST

BEFORE THE MARKET GREW

Executives at Microsoft weren't sitting around the office one day and decided that maybe they could sell a few more OS units by making the platform friendly for games.

For some reason many of today's game commercial developers and publishers are hung up on the idea that a market has to be big before they can enter it. Instead of approaching Linux as an operating system platform that they can grow sales and products on, publishers and developers want Linux to be big first.

And those commercial developers and publishers are getting their collected ***** handed to them by Independent Developers who don't care whether or not a market is big.

Some developers and publishers have caught on that they need to grow their potential markets, and not simply wait around on a Legacy platform.

I don't think DCUO is "bleeding subscribers" yet.

I say this because DCUO only launched back in January:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/950872-dc...se-online/data
http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps3/950873-d...se-online/data

Now, granted, SOE made some mis-steps. For example, there was a Windows PC Client, but no OSX or Linux Client... for a 2011 PC game. Not really the smartest marketing move on SOE's part.

The biggest immediate problem for SOE is that now they are in the shake-out-period... when launch gamers who opted for monthly payments start to drop out, be it for financial reasons, lack of patches, or other reasons. I don't think DCUO's playerbase could be described as stabilized till it hits the 6 month mark.

If the population is still dropping when SOE is beyond the 6 month shake-out point, then SOE and DC are probably going to have very loud words to say to each other.

No. They do not.

Please read my post on the first page of this thread: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showt...50#post3544650

Very, and I mean very, few free-to-play model games manage to post profits. The reason they seem to post profits is because there are so many games using the free-to-play model, and some franchises, such as those run by Zynga, do actually succeed in posting profits on par with the traditional commercial game market.

The thing is, free-to-play games with cash-add-ons do not need to generate massive profits. For the most part free-to-play games use simple game engines with simple game mechanics. Most free-to-play games do not have to support an entire corporation, nor do they have to support the development of other games. All most free-to-play games have to do is generate enough income to cover on-going operating costs of that game.

That free-to-play business model falls apart when considering traditional games.

In the case of NCSoft the profits from games like City of Heroes, AION, Guild Wars, and Lineage are not just funneled back into each developer. Profits are funneled into other games, such as Tabula Rasa, eXteel, Dungeon Runners, and Auto Assault. As a publisher NCSoft takes a chance with each game. Tabula Rasa, for example, put a huge dent in NCSoft's pockets, and City of Heroes was largely credited with saving NCSoft's financial hide that year.

* * *

Now, that being said, will Cryptic go under?

No, but it won't be because of profits from Champions Online or Star Trek Online. While those games have indeed put a drain on Infogrames finances, and while it is likely that neither game will ever actually post a profit back on either their day to day operating costs or total cost of development, that alone won't kill Cryptic.

Cryptic won't go under because Infogrames won't let Cryptic go under. Infogrames, for some reason or another, intends to keep using Cryptic to hammer out MMO after MMO after MMO, and eventually hope something in the resulting chain of games turns into a big hit.

Now, what happens when Infogrames goes under due to their inability to understand the games market? Cryptic will likely go up on the auction block for a fire-sale price.

Power Creation or Proliferation is not, by any means, Low Hanging Fruit.

several threads already exist.

First, the new Windows launcher isn't all that great. It's built with Microsoft .NET, and as evidenced by the numerous users poking into the Technical Issues, buggy as a Georgia Swamp during Mosquito mating season.

Also, as you probably already guessed given whose behind it, .NET is not a native-multiplatform API / Framework.

There is a multi-platform implementation of .NET to be found in Attachmate Mono, but as mentioned in previous threads, running Mono as a solution for .NET is just begging for a lawsuit from software patents.

Efforts are underway to try and get NCSoft to just scrap the existing launcher and build a new launcher leveraging Native Multiplatform frameworks / API's such as QT.

Spiritual or Direct?

Okay, in all fairness, the only well known MMO to get direct-sequel so far has been Everquest... and Everquest 2 did pretty much about the same. It wasn't a flop, but it wasn't a roaring success... largely because Warcraft did Everquest 2 better than Everquest 2.

Other than that, MMO's really don't HAVE sequels unless you count spiritual successors.

And yes, of the spiritual successors, only WarHammer did better than Dark Age of Camelot, but that was mostly because most of DoAC's player-base moved to Warhammer and EA Mythic picked off a few Warcraft refugees.

Numbers can be excessively misleading, as already pointed out in this thread.

The "big" problem with Champions Online numbers is that Infogrames never gave out any financial numbers to begin with. We only have anecdotal evidence that Cryptic was bleeding subscribers. We only have anecdotal evidence that Cryptic had to pay back over 65% of the limetime subscriptions to upset customers. We only have anecdotal evidence that at the time of the decision to go to a free-to-play model that Cryptic was loosing money on both Star Trek AND Champions Online.

The only fact we know for sure is that Infogrames stock price has been tanking: http://investing.businessweek.com/re...?ticker=ATA:FP

Now, is Infogrames poor overall performance a reflection on just Champions Online alone?

Well. No. Infogrames does own a large portfolio of other titles, and there were about 8 other franchise / titles published in 2010: http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/company/5213.html

So Infogrames financial woes can't be blamed solely on Champions Online. By the same token, we can't universally say that Champions Online, and Cryptic by extension, were taking heavy financial losses.

By those same tokens of lack of information, we can't say that a Free-to-Play model made Champions Online profitable. A Free-to-play model may have increased the revenue Cryptic derives. Revenue does not equal profits, and nor does it equal breaking even.

It is very possible, and very likely, for Cryptic's Revenue on Champions Online to increase by 1000% and for Cryptic to still post operating losses.

Now, if Infogrames comes forward and shows the subscriber levels and financial information, and shows that the Free-to-play model did make Cryptic Profitable... then a discussion about using Champions Online as model for any other game can begin.

I don't think Infogrames will be able to do that, mostly as far as I'm aware, that scenario just has not happened.

interesting. I was not aware of this.

Thank mew.

One hell of a necro-post. Mod05 will likely be along shortly to close this one up. Also, it was superseded by another thread late last year:

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=243555

To directly answer your question, Stereoscopic 3D is something the DRIVER does.

Currently none of the existing Stereoscopic 3D drivers from Nvidia, IZ3D, or Tri-Def support OpenGL 3.x targets as used in City of Heroes.

IZ3D says support could be arriving this year for OpenGL 3.x targets, and gamers interested in Stereoscopic 3D are encouraged to contact IZ3D about their desire for such support.

Important part bolded.

Now, what I don't know is if "a developer explicitly engaging" means that Paragon Studios would need to approach Transgaming outside of the OSX contract, or if support would be included as part of the existing / ongoing OSX contract.

In short terms: The Engine Does Not Work Like That

The current respec system is based on using the leveling engine system, which is why you have to choose all of your powers, one after another, as though you were leveling up.

Getting to the point of the current respec systems where you can move enhancements around with abandon is not as simple as chopping off the first part of the respec and accepting the input from the player's current build file.

Even if the developers do design a new UI and new processing engine to handle the task of respeccing, the possibility has been raised that future respecs may limit the number of enhancements that can be pulled, or in the case of allowing powers to be swapped out directly, disabling the ability to unslot enhancements completely.

Maybe. Maybe not. There are much more critical issues at hand, such as the sound engine, or more widely requested features, such as completion of Power Customization.

The relative amount of work to mod the system like you want it, and to create a new system from the ground up, is going to be about the same. Modding the existing system may take additional time and resources as the programmers would have to work around the existing limitations of the existing code, rather than just coding from scratch.

This isn't going to happen for one reason.

The developers really don't want it to happen. Again, the developers are against unslotting.

Unslotting, such as it is, is an unintended bonus of the way the respeccing system works. Again, referring back to the respeccing system leveraging the existing leveling system. The 10 in-try enhancements were already in the leveling system as well as the enhancement binding system.

Again, the developers do not want to encourage widespread unslotting, and the possibility has been raised that a future respec system would also make unslotting a less than desirable feature of respeccing.

Basically, I don't think you are going to get what you want here.

Yeah. I could "see" them allowing a "full respec" under those conditions.

You don't keep any enhancements. You don't keep any powers.

You just roll back to level 1 with all of your badges intact.

I'm not going to say that this will never happen.

The developers are against unslotting as enhancements are the only real influence sink within the game.

That being said, the respec system is due for an overhaul, something discussed last year. My notes on a potential UI design are here: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...5&postcount=18

I'm not yet aware of any prototype work being done on the respec system. I'm fairly confident development priority is pretty low on the list of things for the programmers and UI guys to work on.

Yeah. It's really bad on a Defender. You're expecting this...



but you get... this...

... do us a favor. don't quote AOHell news. They haven't exactly been what one would describe as accurate.

Again, if you want to post accurate updates:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/...iupdate01.html
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/default.aspx

Yeah. I've moved to using Seamonkey more often because of the UI changes to FireFox and other browsers.

I appreciate the interface Google designed for the Chrome... and I accept that it probably is very useful to the... um... type of person that um... (mod05 is probably gonna have to delete this)... plays World of Warcraft.

It just isn't the UI for me.