COH Mythbusters

Flash Arrow doesn't notify mobs, but it does come with a debuff. If Flash Arrow is the only debuff applied and they see you (you walk too close, they have +per, whatever), they'll still attack, and since you're the only one to have affected them, they'll attack you.

Of course, it's difficult to get killed on a MM in general PvE, anway.

And how you interpret the EULA is opinion as well. In fact this entire discussion is nothing more than opinion since as far as we know no court has ruled on this specific subject. To claim what you say is fact and not opinion is just plain dishonest.

According to you IP ownership and even ownership of your car(since you did say transferring IP was just like transferring car ownership) could be claimed by NCSoft just by clicking through their EULA. At best that is unconscionable contract terms.

The latter TYVM!!!!

I've rolled a Thugs MM toon for a concept group that I'm playing sporadically with The Echelon SG, and I am deliberately seeing how long I can go without the temptation of pets.

That said, I do have a second build on that toon that does have the pets, just incase I ever use it with a PUG, as I figure it wouldn't be very fair to expect a PUG to understand the sheer brilliance inherent in the petless MasterMind!

But in general play I get by on my wits, my extensive use of Power Pools (cause let's face it you run out of Primaries very quickly if you don't take pets!) and my trusty dual pistols!

I totally recommend it. Open your minds to the possibilities!!!!!!

And just for posterity....


Myth: Spawning the entire map on the 3rd ITF mission will reduce your lag.

Fact: Didn't work for us!

*shrug*

I would also add that having fun doesn't "magically" mean one has to min-max.

Does that include my SR scrapper's Practiced Brawler click-based power that double (and sometimes triple) stacks, logically giving 2 to 3 times the protection?

Nice one.

QFT. I started out being entertained by the posts early on, and then quickly became overwhelmed by lengthy (and mostly unimportant to me) posts on "copyright."

I seem to have read 2 or 3 discussions on the same exact subject on these boards before...

Some things never die.

Just like any "major release" title that's come out in the history of "graphics engine" gaming?

I fail to see what's wrong with consistently pushing technology forward into the future.

If hardware/computer/game-makers back in the day were content with technology the way I regularly hear forumites whine about "they better not make the hardware requirements higher, because then I might have to spend almost as much money as I pay for beer each month to upgrade my computer!"...

...we'd still be playing text-based games and devoting entire rooms to fit refrigerator-sized computers with 32k memory.


Here's hoping graphics get better for CoX 10 years down the road (assuming the Devs are plannin' on stickin' around for that long on this game).

You're stating this as a fact, right?

Because it's true.

But... isn't that when the building reaches "critical state?" If your "fact" is truth, then your "myth" becomes "fact."


Oh, and here's my contribution to the mythbuster game:

Couple of my coalition mates told me for a LONG time that sidekicked characters benefitted from the enhacement sets of their mentor.

Fact: This is not true... But, I believed them for a long, long time... :P

"Alien"

Originally Posted by Infernus_Hades The way you play changes your IO slotting..

I fail to see how "Newer games have higher system requirements" has any bearing on "If you upgrade the engine of an older game in a way that boosts the system requirements, a certain part of your playerbase will stop playing".

No, it doesn't matter whether they're actually poor or just too lazy to go down to the store (or fire up newegg.com) and grab a new graphics card. It is still a loss of customers, and thus loss of subscription money.

Unless you can *guarantee* that for every person who goes "I can't play this game on my current computer so I will stop playing it" there will be *at least one* person who goes "I wasn't going to ever play this game but now that the graphics engine is upgraded, I will", the result will be a net loss for your company.

I.E. the City of Villains release, which resulted in both a graphics upgrade and a major game nerf?

Yeah, that was a HUGE loss for the company... Especially when they decided to release CoV to the entire playerbase, therefore upping overall strain to graphics hardware (albeit by a very small amount by today's standards), as anyone who has a lower-end system will tell you when they try to play villain-side content.

No, that can't be right... Where's was that graph showing overall player subscriptions when that graphics improvement was implemented? Oh, that's right... In this very thread...

Soo..... What if GR has a graphics upgrade attached to it as well? Will you be another one of those DOOM-sayers that will "prophetically announce" that the new expansion will "kill the game as we know it?"

I know a few people that said the same thing about Mission Architect...

Somehow, CoH still stands.

Weird.

"Alien"

Originally Posted by Infernus_Hades The way you play changes your IO slotting..

1) Neither CoV, nor any of the "graphics creep" that came afterwards boosted the system requirements for the game overall. I'm on a crappy old computer right now, and most of CoH plays quite well (with the settings turned way down, can't even afford anti-aliasing). Only Grandville, Cimerora, and a few other places have any noticeable slowdown. A graphics engine upgrade to make CoH on par with MMOs released this year would definitely put it out of reach of this system.

2) CoV had more than just new graphics. (And, if it does include higher requirements, so will GR.) New zones, new stories, new ATs, all these are things that help existing players justify the cost of an upgrade. I was talking about a situation when CoH rolls out an entirely new graphics engine, and nothing else.

3) I didn't say it would mean "doom for the game". Just "overall net loss of subscriptions". Going from 130k to 110k doesn't doom the game, but it's still a loss.

While I can see your points, I highly doubt there would ever be a situation like that. With CoX's history of releases (both free and paid), there hasn't been a single instance where there was only "one" feature for the entire release. Therefore, I would find it highly unlikely that there would ever be a "Issue 55: Graphics Engine Update." Something like a graphice upgrade would just be worked in as "another feature," not "the only feature."

So, while there may be a slight loss of subscriptions because of a feature like that, other features included with a graphics upgrade *may* be enough for the "lazy people" to upgrade their Tandy 1000s.

"Alien"

Originally Posted by Infernus_Hades The way you play changes your IO slotting..

See, a skillful lawyer (working for NCSoft) could easily argue in favor of TonyV's interpretation of the EULA, therefore it is unarguable *fact*.

A skillful lawyer (working for someone who isn't NCSoft) could just as easily argue in favor of any of the other interpretations of the EULA, but that doesn't count, because as we've already established, TonyV has presented nothing but facts.

Yes, actually you can do.

Here, some homework: link

And a highlight:

As for:

I think the one confused is you. Here, another quote from that link above:

For example, lets say Hotel Marriot. That on it's own has no value and although there is a trademark, the mark is specific in relation to hotels. I can make a phone tomorrow and call it Hotel Marriot (although it would be a bit confusing) but I cant make a hotel as Hotel Marriot, as it relates to Hotels, is protected.

As the article notes, you can trademark a character name in relationship to a character, but from everything I gather it's actually harder to do this as the character must first develop secondary meaning.

Trademark does not stop me from using the name for other character's though. If I so want, I can make a character called Batman as long as he cant be confused with Batman. I can make a super hero with baseball uniform and bat in hand and call him Batman and DC would not be able to do anything as anyone that sees this character would not ever think it's the same Batman.

Emphasis mine.

This post is full of win!

My post was from a /Devices viewpoint. Gun Drone doesn't cut it, at least for me.

I suppose I used the term "alpha" incorrectly. I was thinking of how all those knocked back enemies are scattered to heck and aggro on you now. My comment was a response to a post saying that instead of Time Bomb you could just do two Trip Mines. After I drop the first Trip Mine, the enemies are targeted on me.

I am curious how Seeker Drones protect you from the response from a Trip Mine. Does Seeker Drones have taunt or elevated threat like Phantom Army? I thought they just flew in and exploded. Or are you saying that with Seeker Drones and Trip Mine everything is dead so you don't get attacked back?

Seeker Drones do -20% damage and -5% tohit (enhanceable to -7.8%)

Both drones can do this so thats a total of -40% damage and -10 tohit (enhanceable to -15.6 and equivalent to 31.2% less damage)

Against even level foes, if both drones do their job on the same foes, you may get about 58% less damage. This is using mastermind/corruptor mods and not counting the 25% chance to mag 2 stun that may not be too effective against non-minions.

The building reaches critical mass based on time passed since the fire started, and from then on explodes a second time on a combination of time passed and number of fires. The myth is that if it blows up once, there is nothing you can do to save it and you should just get away. The fact is that you have in the neighbourhood of 5-10 minutes to finish up, depending on how well you can wipe the Hellions.

If you arrive at a fire too late after it has started, the building will sometimes blow up twice in rapid succession as you trigger new Hellions, but this only occurs if you went to a fire late and no-one has been there since it started.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

My characters, which include the sum total of their appearance, their backstory, and other written elements related to them, can be copyright protected as a whole.

Not only wrong, but *really* wrong. Derivative works *are* protected by copyright. The copyright law actually has a *section* on the protection accorded to derivative works: its section 103.

Section 103b:
In copyright law, the "threshold for originality" is presumed to be extremely low. *Any* demonstration of creativity, which would be trivial to demonstrate in making a character with anything short of the random button, would pass. Therefore, my assemblage of character creator artwork is theoretically copyright protected.


It almost sounds like your knowledge of copyright law comes from the doctrines espoused prior to 1976. Prior to the 1976 copyright act, different courts held different things when it came to derivative works, some of which said what you seem to be saying above. However, those legal theories were supposed to be extinguished after 1976.


Oh boy. Where to start.

* First: the visual appearance of a character *can* be copyright protected as a work of art, if its a specific fixed instance. What cannot be copyright protected usually are character designs. Those *can* be trademark protected. A character design that cannot be copyright protected would be something like "tall muscular guy with red and blue costume with cap and big S on the chest." That's a character design: it isn't a specific work of art, but it can be trademarked.

* As an aside, its possible to both copyright *and* trademark a work of art. Trademarks are just that: they are marks intended to identify a particular business or trade. Trademark protection *doesn't* protect against copying or usage per se: it protects against anyone else using the mark for commercial purposes within the same basic business or field.

* Can DC stop me from drawing pictures of Batman on my bedroom wall? No. My drawings are obviously copyright owned by me as the author of the work. I'm not using the character design of Batman for any commercial purpose, so I'm not in violation of their trademark. Ergo, there is no legal rights issue. If I draw Batman on my office building, I may be in violation of their trademark rights. If I blow up a cover of Batman and put that up on my office building, I'm in violation of their copyright rights (assuming DC owned those rights and the cover was a work-for-hire).


Copyright law is applicable in the case of the rights being discussed, because no one is claiming that any player nor NCSoft has ever taken out trademark protection on any character created by a subscriber.


It just occured to me that at least one person has a rather unique insight on this question. Castle created his character prior to becoming an employee for Paragon Studios. Technically speaking, by some people's interpretation around here, he had no rights to his character the moment he added it to the game as a player. I'm now curious to know if Castle was asked to specifically sign a copyright transfer document to that character when it was added as a contact to the game. Technically speaking, I'm pretty sure anything Castle makes as a result of being told to do so by his employer is covered as a work-for-hire creation, but I'm curious if the NCSoft legal eagles realized that a pre-existing character of Castle's would create a potential loophole to that agreement which they decided to close. The actual intent of the 1976 copyright law was to force people to always do that so that the courts wouldn't have to keep deciding fuzzy ownership cases like this. I'll have to ask him that next time I have a chance, although I'm not sure Castle would be comfortable answering contractual questions in a public forum (although this is a rather harmless one).

Is there room for me on that bandwagon? Be my hero too, Rusted_Metal. That was fantastic.

Lets not forget groups such a Longbow, who operate as personal military forces that believe themselves to be above the common mans law. They regularly invade and conduct spy missions on foreign powers without answering to any world court.

At least Vanguard is sanctioned by the UN. All Longbow has is a note that says "Statesman sez...."