Why do HEATs feel like fail?

There isn't a mathematical expression for fun. But there is one for effectiveness.

I'm not telling anyone how to have fun or that they aren't having fun.

I am going to easily state that X is better than Y by the numbers.

I am going to state that form shifting is clunky and inefficient.

I am not stating that if you don't run at +4/x8 you're not having fun.

I am stating that if you can't while others can then your character must be weaker than those that can.

I am not telling anyone that weak characters can't be fun. Fun is subjective.

AT capability is not.

Not ONCE have I EVER stated that Kheldians aren't fun for anyone because of their poor design. That would be idiocy. People have fun with all manner of things.

All I'm waiting for is for people to quite lying to themselves that poor design equates to a challenge and to drop their idiotic superiority complexes based on "well, I play the Challenging ATs" when instead they're just getting by and making do with the klunky and poorly thought out AT.

Remember all those posts of mine stating that I enjoy my Warshade? It's still true. Bad design or not. EDIT: And he's got nothing but basic IOs.)

I worked AROUND that bad design. I ignored the forms. I accepted the lack of mez protection. I play to the strengths of the good powers while ignoring the lousy powers.

Which is exactly what all the pro-Khel posters state they do with theirs. Play to the strengths of the AT!

As we all should.

But please quit spewing the ridiculous statement that "Khels are Epic because of the storyline!!" The Khel storyline isn't the Illiad. There's nothing epic about them. They're nothing but another AT in a game.

They also aren't "challenging." If I had enough masochism I could solo an FF/Ene defender. Khels soloability is VASTLY superior to that madness.

Street sweep to 6. Take Nova at 6. Respec into human/dwarf at 21-24. Slot up dwarf and lean heavily on it when fighting mezzers. No problem.

Does that mean the AT is well designed? Nope.

A good design doesn't lead to annoyance.

Pardon the out-of-order quotes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba A good design doesn't lead to annoyance.

Then Khelds are a good design.

Quote:

There isn't a mathematical expression for fun. But there is one for effectiveness

"Being the most numerically effective" isn't "fun" for everyone. If it were, everyone'd be playing fire/kins farming demon maps or whatnot - yet I have fun with my numerically-much-worse, slower-killing Earth/FF.

Quote:

All I'm waiting for is for people to quite lying to themselves that poor design equates to a challenge and to drop their idiotic superiority complexes based on "well, I play the Challenging ATs" when instead they're just getting by and making do with the klunky and poorly thought out AT.

See, you're putting your opinion ("klunky, poorly thought out") there as a fact. It plays *differently.* That's a fact. "Klunky" is not. "Klunky" is an *opinion.* Someone who's stressing numbers, well... show me the formula for "klunky."

Quote:

But please quit spewing the ridiculous statement that "Khels are Epic because of the storyline!!" The Khel storyline isn't the Illiad. There's nothing epic about them. They're nothing but another AT in a game

... that unlike the others, pre-VEAT, were:
- Forced to a specific origin
- Given a specific foe that HUNTS them
- had a separate storyline written SPECIFICALLY for them.

Thus, "epic" in the "story" definition. They are there because of the Kheldian war. The ability to form-shift is explained via the storyline. Blasters arent' there because of anything specific. Nor are tanks, brutes, etc. There's no "Mastermind storyline." I cannot write one of these for Defenders. Yes, there's an overall COV storyline that's not AT specific. Yes, there are various COH storylines - that arent' specific to anyone. But Khelds got one *in addition,* tied *specifically* to what they are.
Nobody CLAIMS it's great literature. Yet they ARE tied to that story - thus, that definition of epic. Again, just because you may not care for them, doesn't mean you get to ignore that definition - the very one handed down to us by the devs. The ones who CHOSE the "tied to a storyline" (note "tied to" as opposed to "This is the best story ever written,") over the "more powerful by a large margin than anything else" definition.
Hell, VEATs get the same thing and I *certainly* don't claim THAT's good ... yet they're also given the title "epic," and have their own, separate storyline and unique starting contact in addition to the rest of the game. I'd say that, as well, trumps the "don't give me the storyline" argument. VEATs also, by *that* definition and not power or what have you, fall under "epic." They're forced to one origin, forced to fit a certain look in their first costume because of their storyline, and are given a separate storyline and unique set of contacts unavailable by any means to the normal ATs to go through their separate story. The one they're tied to - that makes them fall under the "Epic AT" definition we were handed before.

Quote:

I am going to easily state that X is better than Y by the numbers.

For the overall package? Or just looking at DPS or something else? Just how picky will you be? Are you taking into consideration that (for example) while you're fighting something with your Warshade, even in Nova, that while you're doing X damage, you're *taking* less because everything you hit is slowed and not recharging as fast? Or is that not entering into this equation? Or that a Peacebringer is dropping their defense, making it easier to hit them each subsequent time? Hell, BZB, you're telling me that *staying alive,* gaining resistance, more HP, beign able to ignore immobs (by getting inherent teleport) AND getting a self heal - IE, Dwarf form - is less efficient than... faceplanting. I don't find laying in the dirt to provide very high DPS.

Hell, I *think* it was you I had the argument with via EnA brutes (if not - well, it's been a while) along the same lines, where I mentioned taking the brute *as a whole* into consideration. That my primary (EM) and its stuns were part of how I would offset any "holes" with EnA. I'm seeing the same thing with Fire - SS, to me, pairs far better with the set than Energy does. But how often does that come into "Play X tank" discussions?

See my Guides and Tutorials

Played one without knowing about keybinds and tray swapping? Annoying.

Ever shifted to nova or dwarf to find that your tray didn't swap or it did but all your powers are greyed out forcing you to shift back and forth to get them to work? Annoying.

At least the idiocy of toggle based mitigation without mez protection was finally dealt with by having toggles suppress instead of turn off. Now we're just left the annoyance of turning back on human toggles after form shifting or ignoring the forms altogether.

The list goes on, of course.

Far as I can see (from Dev posts over the years and recently) the Form Changes of HEATs were initially designed as a thing you use sparingly on teams. The idea was that you picked the form which filled whatever hole was on your team and pretty much stuck to it (say like a WoW Druid).

We're talking about an AT which originally had some pretty horrible debuffs on it, by design, which teaming was meant to negate. This was removed, but it was still part of the original design.

I love form flitting, but I've always felt that the Triform dancing Warshade was a happy accident, not something the devs (and especially not the original devs) meant by design (in fact the way Dwarf Mire got changed to a low duration, quick recharging attack & buff further hints that things like double mired Novas on the resistance cap were never intended by the initial design).

Khelds aren't the only AT that's moved considerably from its initial design. Lots of ATs have had radical changes from their initial design to something more suited to the actual game ("just because it looks good on paper doesn't mean it'll work well in practice"). Controllers, Dominators and Stalkers for example, have all had substantial changes to their initial design.

Still my WS is easily my most fun character to play, initial bad design or no.

Can we just agree to disagree?

Some of us like to be passively powerful.

Some of us like to be actively powerful.

I happen to like both depending on my mood. If I want to know that I can be immensely powerful provided I do everything right, I'll play my warshade. If I want to waltz through enemies without really doing much, I'll play my mastermind.

Way to ignore that first point, man. And you attack other people for selective reading?

In the Khel case, I will hold long existing bugs as a ding against the design, when the design of the set itself creates the existence of the bug in question.

When the bug is fixed, either by changing the design or fixing the bug, I'll yell yay with everyone else.

<rant>

Guys... guys... GUYS! /me gets red in the face yelling for everyone to calm down... You're all forgetting that the concept of fun, at least in MMOs relies on the ability of the game to offer different levels of complexity in both actual gameplay and attribute min/max activities. Some ATs are bound to be easier to build and easier to play while others are tougher to build and tougher to play. Some people will enjoy the easier-to-handle ATs while others will enjoy the tougher ATs more. What's more surprising is that the same people may on different occasions play a tougher ATs and later on switch on to the easier ATs just for a change of pace.

Judging an AT design by how well it performs in the hands of the most qualified player against the more extreme combat conditions is not going to teach you anything just as judging the AT in the hands of a rookie against gray-conning enemies isn't going to touch you much. An AT design has to be examined under the most common circumstances, i.e. a rookie player, playing with equal-conning enemies. That's what the game is balanced for, and therefore, that's what every AT design should be examined at.

Even at a point where an AT satisfies the masses (washed or unwashed) it may still disappoint some people based on completely subjective reasoning that has nothing to do with the ATs performance. Things like flavor and immersion factors guarantee some people will still begrudge a perfectly designed AT. Perhaps sometimes because of it being perfectly designed.

No one should think that Scrappers are ill-designed because they prefer Controllers, or that Defenders are ill-designed because they are not designed to tank like Tankers. So, please extend that courtesy to HEATs and VEATs. They are different animals for different playstyles. Each EAT is designed with different goals in mind, so before judging the design, first we must understand the goal. Most people I know who play this game, and that goes for many forumites I've had the pleasure/displeasure to read, couldn't care less about an ATs goal above and beyond "to melt faces".

</rant>

The TL;DR here is: both VEATs and HEATs function absolutely fine in the normal game difficulty, for which the game is balanced, and respectively provide in that same setting both easy and relaxing fun gameplay experience (V), or challenging digit-biting gameplay experience (H) to those players who prefer either style. Therefore I maintain that both EATs are well-designed.

Now... let the pie-slinging continue

I think one odd thing in HEATS vs VEATs to me is that I don't much care for Peacebringers but I love Warshades and I don't much care for Soldiers but I love the Widows so I don't exactly get the black and white comparisons at the Khelds vs VEATs level.

Perhaps it would be better to discuss what could be improved with Khelds?

Personally I really feel that they need more slots when they choose the forms though I can understand the reasoning of not giving more than 1 per power.

Pretty much what I've been trying to say, Xenite. There is no AT in this game that is extremely subpar, or "fail." Some are stronger in different situations than others. But it balances out. The great thing about this game is how much all the ATs can work solo and teamed. They can all contribute. Good stuff.

Are there still some wonky powers or mechanics out there that need tweaking? Sure thing. Hence my posting in threads to make minor adjustments to Fiery Aura, Peacebringers, etc. But there isn't an AT that is "fail." Whenever I see a post like that, I know someone has a bias and a major axe to grind.

Bill I would agree that there should be in-game macros specifically for changing Kheldian forms and the trays they are using (though I got by without using binds at all for a long time). Same thing for shields and stuff for human form Kheldians... it IS clunky to drop from Dwarf or Nova into human, and have to retoggle... that's clunky design, I would say. But that doesn't mean they aren't playable.

I have the same wishes for a lot of things in game. I wish Masterminds had better controls and macros for their pets. I wish a lot of powers in game didn't take so long to activate. The issues aren't solely in Kheldians, and the small issues Kheldians have don't make them too difficult or unplayable.

If you don't want to play them because they bug you enough, go for it. Like I said before, I have ATs I just don't want to touch as well.

Was it bad design to have SR Elude be a phase shift power that stopped you from attacking? Apparently so as it was changed.

Was it bad design for controllers to lack any kind of meaningful damage output? Apparently so as it was changed.

Was it bad design to have a 3 gazillion second animation that looked like a cat on acid attacking the living room curtains as the tier1 attack for claws? Apparently so as it was changed.

There is a huge difference between attacking bad design and stating something sucks.

I'm doing the former while many are attacking me for doing the latter.

There's not a single person here that can say with any level of honesty that a PB is in any way comparable to a WS when comparing the two in their entirety. We all know this is false. The PB may start out stronger but it is quickly surpassed.

This is bad design. Does this mean that PBs suck and can't get through normal content on normal difficulty? Of course not. We've already covered that. Does that mean that we should just sweep all the poor design under the rug and call it WAI? Of course not. This game doesn't and shouldn't work that way.

*sigh*