Why do HEATs feel like fail?
By
Afterimage,
Posted on: 2009-10-10 13:43 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
On the evolution side topic that's started, let's don't get bogged down in semantics.
Yes, there is Cooperation in Nature, but that doesn't mean it can't also be a part of Competition. The Genes of any organism strive to survive, yet there are not enough resources around for all of them to, thus competition. The Gene wants to survive and reproduce however it can, and doesn't give a Rat's Behind about the Genes of others. As Richard Dawkins says, they're pretty darn Selfish [sic].
Cooperation can be seen as another tool to aid the Gene in surviving. Gene Strategies: "Big Strong Muscles will help me survive and pass on MY Genetic Material, but so also does hanging out and working with these other Guys."
Analogy: A real Glory Hound Football Player wants to win the Heisman Trophy. What's the best strategy? Making oneself really strong and going it alone, or teaming up with a bunch of other really good players? The latter is the answer, but either way, there's competition involved. Which ever way the Gene goes, rest assured that ITS Goal is to Insure ITS Genetic material survives, even at the expense of the others.
Kinds stark, but that's Genes for ya. Fortunately, I don't believe Genes are the only guiding force out there, 'specially for us Humans. Nevertheless, those greedy little bahstads will do pretty much anything to survive, and they don't really care what our higher level hopes and dreams are, so be wary 
Quote:
My problem with people continuing to say it, is that it's a racist thing to say. I wouldn't get away with saying the n-word for black people and then when people came to me angry get away with it by saying "woah, let's not get bogged down by semantics".|
Originally Posted by Socorro
On the evolution side topic that's started, let's don't get bogged down in semantics.
|
For all those reading: stop saying it. It's a racist thing to say, and offensive to anyone who does understand what you're saying.
"Be a beacon?"
Blue Mourning: lvl. 50 Katana/DA
Bree the Barricade: lvl 50 Stone/Axe
Last Chance for Eden: lvl 50 Fire/Kin
Myra the Grey: lvl 50 Bots/Traps
1 Minute to Midnight lvl 50 Spines/DA
Quote:
Well there are two sides to every point, and since you are perfectly right I am not stupid enough to try and say otherwise.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
*cough*
No. In nature, cooperation is a fundamental success strategy employed by almost all lifeforms. Not just within a species either - consider bees and flowers, or seed fruit and the animals that eat them and distribute the seeds in their droppings, or the intestinal flora of ruminants. The real law of nature is that genes persist when they create traits that give an advantage, and die with their carriers when they don't. This leads to a delicate balance of cooperation and competition within a species, as each individual (not necessarily consciously) balances the value propagating its own genome with the risk of hyperaggressive competition leaving no individuals capable of breeding. If competition beat out cooperation in every case, I would pick up the nearest weapon and start murdering every male I saw and [forcibly attempting to have connubial relations with] every female in a desperate attempt to pass on my genes. But if everyone did that, humanity would not survive. Your brand of "social darwinism" is counterindicated by actual study of nature, and also simple common sense. Neither cooperation nor competition is supreme - total competition is apocalyptic, and total cooperation is only possible among genetically identical clones, which are an evolutionary dead end. Sorry for the tangent/rant, but it really jerks my chain when people use a bad understanding of biology to justify a purely selfish (or purely cooperative, for that matter) blueprint for human society. |
But equally the point I was trying to make is also quite right. For example take mating seasons, most animals develop a way of breeding that ensures only the strong (Or sneaky) males get to mate. That is survival of the fittest.
So I was never trying to have a go or call you wrong, but I think that competition is more important that co-operation overall. Co-operation makes for a great world but only those who win the competitions can take their place within it.
Princess Darkstar - Proud Member of the Handprints of Union, the #1 ranked SG in Europe!
British by act of union, English by grace of God, Northern by pure good fortune!
British by act of union, English by grace of God, Northern by pure good fortune!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aggelakis
PrincessDarkstar: "RAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHH SOMEONE IS *WRONG* ON THE INTERNET!"
|
Quote:
While saying 'Survival of the Fittest' is a bit outdated and colloquial, I fail to see how the statement is automatically racist. Certainly, Herbert Spencer touted it when he mouthed off his Social Darwinism BS, but everyone who uses the phrase isn't automatically thinking only of Human Races. When it comes to Genes and Evolution as a whole, the phrase isn't completely out of whack...|
Originally Posted by Blue_Mourning
My problem with people continuing to say it, is that it's a racist thing to say. I wouldn't get away with saying the n-word for black people and then when people came to me angry get away with it by saying "woah, let's not get bogged down by semantics".
For all those reading: stop saying it. It's a racist thing to say, and offensive to anyone who does understand what you're saying. |
Lets be honest. Genes don't play nice and they are NOT anybody's friend. Their goal is to pass along their genetic material (ie. Survive) in the most efficient way (ie. Fittest) possible and they do not care what else lives or dies while they go about it.
(aside: sorry for the Gene Personification, but such is sometimes necessary to get points across. Genes do not actively think and plan this way. Rather, they're very deterministic and mechanical... or so they seem muahahaha)
Nature, in many ways, exhibits this property of genes in an emergent sort of way. Nature in general is not nice. Go take a picnic in the Serengeti if you think otherwise
Quote:
Kheldians were designed to require more player-effort, period. If a player wants to be successful with a Kheldian, they have to learn more about game mechanics than almost any other class out there requires, and the player is actually tested on their knowledge whenever they take out their Kheldian to the field. This more than anything else is probably the reason most people feel Kheldians are a failure. They require more investment to accomplish anything worthwhile.
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
In other words, one can only say that the HEATs are fully designed if you don't care about mechanics, as neither you nor their original designers do.
Like the title of this thread implies, HEATs feel like fail. Feel. Get it? 
I believe that a Kheldian Gold Standard should be based on SO's, and for anything above that... there's Platinum!
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Quote:
Words cannot be racist, they can however be used in a racist way and I don't think anyone in this thread has meant anything in a racist way.
|
Originally Posted by Blue_Mourning
My problem with people continuing to say it, is that it's a racist thing to say.
|
Princess Darkstar - Proud Member of the Handprints of Union, the #1 ranked SG in Europe!
British by act of union, English by grace of God, Northern by pure good fortune!
British by act of union, English by grace of God, Northern by pure good fortune!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aggelakis
PrincessDarkstar: "RAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHH SOMEONE IS *WRONG* ON THE INTERNET!"
|
Quote:
Humans, as odd as it may be, thrive on many things. Some of them are positive such as cooperation and good sportsmanship in competitions, and other things that are negative by nature. In essence, people thrive on a complex variety of factors, and giving us only one thing or the other will create an unhealthy environment.
Originally Posted by Eiko-chan
Humans thrive on cooperation, not competition.
We require the negative, if only to identify and accentuate the positive. It's in our nature.
I believe that a Kheldian Gold Standard should be based on SO's, and for anything above that... there's Platinum!
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Quote:
I agree that these are the results of Kheldian design, but I am not convinced (and indeed, I probably cannot be convinced) that the people who designed Kheldians did so with this result in mind. When the same result could be achieved by accident, and the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the developers at the time did not have the necessary knowledge to deliberately accomplish these results, good old Occam's razor leads me to believe that the accident is the more likely explanation.|
Originally Posted by LordXenite
Kheldians were designed to require more player-effort, period. If a player wants to be successful with a Kheldian, they have to learn more about game mechanics than almost any other class out there requires, and the player is actually tested on their knowledge whenever they take out their Kheldian to the field. This more than anything else is probably the reason most people feel Kheldians are a failure. They require more investment to accomplish anything worthwhile.
|
One thing I am quite certain of: the current dev team would never create powers like Eclipse, Gravitic Emanation, Gravity Well, or Dark Extraction. On the other hand, they'd also never create powers like Ebon Eye, Gravimetric Snare, or Essence Drain. Take that as you will.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
It was Herbert Spencer who originally coined the phrase 'Survival of the Fittest', and I think it's safe to say he meant it in a fairly racist way. However, as history does to things, the context of the phrase has shifted, and most people these days think it applies to Evolution in general (and honestly they're not entirely incorrect), and many even attribute the statement to Darwin himself.|
Originally Posted by PrincessDarkstar
Words cannot be racist, they can however be used in a racist way and I don't think anyone in this thread has meant anything in a racist way.
|
Bottom Line: You are right. One is not a racist just for saying it, despite its origins, because most don't know that.
Quote:
I tend to agree with you and have argued such. I don't think the current playstyle of Khelds was the original Dev intent and design at all.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
I agree that these are the results of Kheldian design, but I am not convinced (and indeed, I probably cannot be convinced) that the people who designed Kheldians did so with this result in mind. When the same result could be achieved by accident, and the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the developers at the time did not have the necessary knowledge to deliberately accomplish these results, good old Occam's razor leads me to believe that the accident is the more likely explanation.
One thing I am quite certain of: the current dev team would never create powers like Eclipse, Gravitic Emanation, Gravity Well, or Dark Extraction. On the other hand, they'd also never create powers like Ebon Eye, Gravimetric Snare, or Essence Drain. Take that as you will. |
However, they've had plenty of time and oppurtunity to change things if they so desired, and while they have changed many things about Khelds, the base AT structure has remained intact, despite how the playstyle it allowd has deviated from the original vision.
Ergo, current Kheld Design IS the design the Devs want.
Quote:
Very true, however, and this is a HUGE however. For a group to function as a group, the individual group members must surrender their free will in certain situation and act as one under the leadership of the pack leader. In certain situation if even one member fails to do so, the whole group may be in danger.
Originally Posted by Eiko-chan
Humanity evolved from pack hunters, and retain one of the primary aspects of that history: we work best in groups.
The only way to make a group leader is by competition because in battle, a group leader is alone and does not have anyone else to rely on to act. Human history proves and makes this point for us time and again. People surrender themselves to leadership. Leadership is borne out of competition and strife and not out of mutual cooperation.
I believe that a Kheldian Gold Standard should be based on SO's, and for anything above that... there's Platinum!
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Quote:
BINGO! Douze Points and a triple DING for you!
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Neither cooperation nor competition is supreme - total competition is apocalyptic, and total cooperation is only possible among genetically identical clones, which are an evolutionary dead end.
Sorry for the tangent/rant, but it really jerks my chain when people use a bad understanding of biology to justify a purely selfish (or purely cooperative, for that matter) blueprint for human society.
I believe that a Kheldian Gold Standard should be based on SO's, and for anything above that... there's Platinum!
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Quote:
Very true, LX. Additionally, when one seriously talks about Evolution, one must always at least try to see things from the Gene's 'Point of View'. In your example, the trait of 'Willingness to Surrender Will to the Strong Leader and be part of His Group' is, from the Gene's viewpoint, a very good strategy for ITS (not the groups) survival. A Gene's likelihood of of passing along its 'stuff' goes way down if its parent organism is all alone and gets killed and eaten |
Originally Posted by LordXenite
Very true, however, and this is a HUGE For a group to function as a group, the individual group members must surrender their free will in certain situation and act as one under the leadership of the pack leader.
|
Quote:
I don't know if this will shed some light on the issue, but here goes:
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
I agree that these are the results of Kheldian design, but I am not convinced (and indeed, I probably cannot be convinced) that the people who designed Kheldians did so with this result in mind.
Geko said that around December 2004. Whether Kheldian design is bad, good, or anywhere in-between, I think that if one believes Geko, one must therefore conclude that Kheldian design has achieved its intended goal and obviously, I believe Geko. Quote:
"...Kheldians are supposed to be a challenge. They are designed for the most experience players... the players who analyze and dissect an archetype. You are given a lot of tools to work with and a lot of dials to turn. It will be up to you to figure out the best way to spec out a Kheldian..."
I believe that a Kheldian Gold Standard should be based on SO's, and for anything above that... there's Platinum!
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Quote:
Naturally.
Originally Posted by Socorro
Very true, LX. Additionally, when one seriously talks about Evolution, one must always at least try to see things from the Gene's 'Point of View'. In your example, the trait of 'Willingness to Surrender Will to the Strong Leader and be part of His Group' is, from the Gene's viewpoint, a very good strategy for ITS (not the groups) survival. A Gene's likelihood of of passing along its 'stuff' goes way down if its parent organism is all alone and gets killed and eaten
I believe that a Kheldian Gold Standard should be based on SO's, and for anything above that... there's Platinum!
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
I only read the first few replies, not the whole thread, but wanted to chime in that the OP is most definitely not alone. I've teamed with some pretty awesome Khelds over the years. In particular I did an ITF a while back with a real kick-*** WS so I finally decided to try one out. I rolled up a WS, grabbed some nifty binds so that I wouldn't lose my sanity changing power trays, and started leveling up.
I stuck with him until the mid-30s, but he's shelved. I constantly felt like I was the proverbial "jack of all trades, master of none." I could do lots of stuff but nothing particularly well. It just wasn't fun for me. This is in stark contrast to my experience with my Widow, which was fun from 1-50.
I most definitely am not saying that Khelds suck! I've teamed with lots of them over the years that were great teammates, and reading the Kheld forums I can see there's a lot of folks who love theirs.
Unlike the OP, I wouldn't say that Khelds "feel like fail," I'd just say they are ATs that don't appeal to everyone.
Freedom: Blazing Larb, Fiery Fulcrum, Sardan Reborn, Arctic-Frenzy, Wasabi Sam, Mr Smashtastic.
Quote:
Well, the better focus of the jack of all trades quote is that your strength is being able to do just about anything. For Kheldians, you can do that for the course of a TF, story arc, mission, or even mid-battle. Which is advantageous. There are times my Tanker would like more damage (and ranged damage) over his survivability, and times my Blaster could use some more survivability. A Kheldian can fill all those voids and not feel the lack. You get to be things the specialist can not be.|
Originally Posted by Sardan
I stuck with him until the mid-30s, but he's shelved. I constantly felt like I was the proverbial "jack of all trades, master of none." I could do lots of stuff but nothing particularly well. It just wasn't fun for me. This is in stark contrast to my experience with my Widow, which was fun from 1-50.
|
It's not always for everyone, of course, but a little perspective on the jack of all trades thing helps, too.
Oh, and if you're in the mid-30s, you should keep going. Eclipse is going to give you some amazing resistances, and more slots will make your powers all the more strong... and the experience all the more fun.
Up to you of course, but you get better the further you go as a Kheldian.
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
After even more practice with my warshade, I feel even more powerful. And according to Geko's quote, the design has perfectly achieved what it set out to do.
I would support shortening the time it takes to switch forms, however, I don't feel this is necessary by any stretch of imagination.
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
This thread had me reflecting on why Khelds will probably be my last in my quest for “one of each AT to 50.”
Back when I was working on my first 50 I wouldn’t wait to get a kheld. I tend be drawn to the AT crossing powersets (tanks that sacrifice survivability for damage, blasters heavy on controls, Offenders), so khelds seemed perfect for me.
My problem is with my abilities controlling the character. I started playing right after I-6 launched so I’ve never dealt with unsupressed fly. I really, really have issues controlling myself in Nova form. There were quite a few times I aggro’d a spawn from the floor above flying around like an idiot trying to position my cones . Or the times I flew into the next mob, etc. I also have issues switching between the forms and not causing myself problems, even with the macros.
I know that I don’t need to change forms, but I also agree that I wouldn’t be playing to my potential if I did.
My Characters
Quote:
That's compelling evidence of design intent, and I am now convinced that the implementation of Khelds does bear a relationship to that design goal. That an archetype designed to be difficult to build towards playability isn't universally appealing was probably a predictable outcome, and contrary to the opinions of some other posters here I don't think that necessarily reflects poorly on the player community.
|
Originally Posted by LordXenite
I don't know if this will shed some light on the issue, but here goes:
Quote:
|
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
Alright, I understand this much. You believe the design met its goals, but the designers should have predicted that it would not be liked by everyone. |
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
That's compelling evidence of design intent, and I am now convinced that the implementation of Khelds does bear a relationship to that design goal. That an archetype designed to be difficult to build towards playability isn't universally appealing was probably a predictable outcome,
|
I'd argue that just because a blaster is easy to build towards playability, that doesn't make it universally appealing. I still don't like playing blasters. My point is that no matter how you approach a design, not everyone is going to like it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
...and contrary to the opinions of some other posters here I don't think that necessarily reflects poorly on the player community.
|
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Quote:
Agreed, and I don't think it should be a design goal. Nor do I believe the design of khelds is necessarily a failure because they are not universally appealing. There are aspects of the design that I do consider questionable, but that has more to do with the goal of being the "ultimate teammate." *|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
I'd argue that just because a blaster is easy to build towards playability, that doesn't make it universally appealing. I still don't like playing blasters. My point is that no matter how you approach a design, not everyone is going to like it.
|
Quote:
| Reading comprehension FTL. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, can I get a hint? |
* To see what I'm getting at here, consider that Khelds would probably be far more popular if populations were sparse and we could only have one alt at a time. In that case, an AT that could do a good job of filling the hole on any team they join would be pretty useful - you pick up a Kheld to take the Tanker position, say, and if you later get a Tanker then the Kheld just switches to blasting or whatever. But if you already have lots of people playing alts that do all those jobs better, there's no compelling reason not to just switch alts or grab a specialist - and Khelds are specifically prohibited by design from doing any job better than a specialist, or there'd be no reason to play anything but a Kheld. (This also means that SSK really hurts Khelds, as it opens up an even larger population of specialists to choose over Khelds). VEATs take a different approach to the "ultimate teammate" goal: instead of doing 90% of one job at a time, they do 50% of three or four simultaneously. A skilled Kheld player can shift from role to role quickly enough to provide a similar benefit, but it takes significantly more effort and is probably more a happy accident than a deliberate consequence of the design.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
Many players, both in-game and on the forums, have already declared their love for thrills that come from rushing into stuff guns-blazing and to heck with tactics, strategy or game mechanics.
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
That's compelling evidence of design intent, and I am now convinced that the implementation of Khelds does bear a relationship to that design goal. That an archetype designed to be difficult to build towards playability isn't universally appealing was probably a predictable outcome, and contrary to the opinions of some other posters here I don't think that necessarily reflects poorly on the player community.
I know this may sound mean-spirited, but to be honest, I felt cheated once I took my Dominator to Lv50 only to unlock VEATs and discover their playstyle revolved so much around passive abilities and active abilities that were completely uninteresting to me for various reasons. So for me, VEATs satisfy the thrill-seekers who are looking for the cheap and easy (passive force-multiplying powers coupled with reliable mez-protection and easily accessible attack-chains) while Kheldians satisfy people looking for a more cerebral experience.
We're all entitled to our own niches in this game, but what truly reflects poorly on the player community happens when the VEAT-enthusiasts want to mold Kheldians in the image of their precious VEATs, i.e. passively overpowered.
I believe that a Kheldian Gold Standard should be based on SO's, and for anything above that... there's Platinum!
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
Save Ms. Liberty (#5349) � Augmenting Peacebringers � The Umbra Illuminati
I wouldn't put it in those terms - I think it makes some derogatory and unwarranted assumptions about the mentality of those who prefer VEATs to HEATs. But I do agree that the appropriate response to an archetype you don't enjoy playing is not to play it, rather than to ask for changes to the AT - unless you can actually demonstrate a structural problem that makes the AT objectively inferior, as was arguably the case for Doms, Stalkers, and Khelds before the recent buffs. I don't much care for the MM playstyle, for instance, but the AT is doing fine as is and doesn't need to bend to my whims. The tricky bit is drawing the line between "I don't like it" and "it has problems"; HEATs, designed as the challenge AT, are naturally going to encounter quite a bit of the former, which might mask the existence of the latter.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
No. In nature, cooperation is a fundamental success strategy employed by almost all lifeforms. Not just within a species either - consider bees and flowers, or seed fruit and the animals that eat them and distribute the seeds in their droppings, or the intestinal flora of ruminants. The real law of nature is that genes persist when they create traits that give an advantage, and die with their carriers when they don't. This leads to a delicate balance of cooperation and competition within a species, as each individual (not necessarily consciously) balances the value propagating its own genome with the risk of hyperaggressive competition leaving no individuals capable of breeding. If competition beat out cooperation in every case, I would pick up the nearest weapon and start murdering every male I saw and [forcibly attempting to have connubial relations with] every female in a desperate attempt to pass on my genes. But if everyone did that, humanity would not survive.
Your brand of "social darwinism" is counterindicated by actual study of nature, and also simple common sense. Neither cooperation nor competition is supreme - total competition is apocalyptic, and total cooperation is only possible among genetically identical clones, which are an evolutionary dead end.
Sorry for the tangent/rant, but it really jerks my chain when people use a bad understanding of biology to justify a purely selfish (or purely cooperative, for that matter) blueprint for human society.
No evolutionary biologist would ever have said "only the fittest survive", because it is a tautology. That term was coined by a social darwinist in the early part of last century (I think) who was using his poor understanding of what Darwin was saying to justify his racist views. That people are STILL saying it to this day is really really really annoying.
Actually the only person who gets it right in popular culture is the X-men villain Apocalypse, who is, after a fashion, a social Darwinist.
"Be a beacon?"
Blue Mourning: lvl. 50 Katana/DA
Bree the Barricade: lvl 50 Stone/Axe
Last Chance for Eden: lvl 50 Fire/Kin
Myra the Grey: lvl 50 Bots/Traps
1 Minute to Midnight lvl 50 Spines/DA