Fortune go my wife killed

Arcana, the same could be said of the things you have shared in here too.
Step off the high horse a bit there.

To put it simply (To your question, why should rules be different for the game as opposed to other players):
Universally speaking, because the game that I design, I design with care and concern and control to be fun, challenging, rewarding, etc. And I can place my trust in that more than I can in other players.

Now... the key to these rules not being separate is designing the game to not be exploitable (or to allow other players to be "abusive" with what the game can allow them to do).
Whether or not that treads in the realm of perfection, I'm not certain.

Specifically, in this matter, I would not design a power that casts any such long lasting effects. Certainly not something in a $10 booster pack, available to all ATs.


As to your movie observations:
See (And this is the sort of thing that is the root of certain differing opinions), I do not go to movie theatres to be in a room with others. I am not bothered (In the slightest) to watch a movie in a movie theatre that is otherwise empty (It's actually terrific!).

As large as my television screen may be, and as great as my surround sound system may be, it is not as large or as great as a high quality movie theatre (Speaking of which, I really only ever go to digital projection theatres these days {Or Imax, if something in particular is using that properly]).
I go for the greater immersion of the larger and more sophisticated technological and physical circumstance.
Sure, midnight premieres can be extra fun, because you get a theatre full of enthusiasts and fans. And, every time I've gone to a special showing, the audience is great, attentive, respectful... probably because that's why they are there as well. Going to a regular movie on any old night at whatever theatre can be a pretty poor experience (From the low quality equipment, degraded film rolls and disrespectful people).

Some people prefered to watch movies "fullscreen" on their 4x3 tvs as opposed to letterbox. Some people now watch tv programs stretched out on their 16x9 screens instead of in the show's native 4x3 ratio...
Some people prefer an audio-dubbed movie than to read the subtitles.

So, we have options.

You can specify your art and entertainment to whatever groups of taste you so choose.
I'm glad that CoH makes efforts to reach out and maintain differing tastes.

You have your opinion and I have mine and other people have theirs.
Paragon Studio has theirs.
I'm very happy that their opinion aligns with mine, in regards to being able to decline this unique power.

Arcana, I honestly would have quoted more of your posts and replied and continued a reasonable discussion, but, by the time I came back to this, there were many more replies and lots of the same old... And the prompt/no prompt topic is dead to me.

I think it was said well above by Clebstein. This particular thing does not lead to a slippery slope (Which is basically where you've been coming from, regarding this conversation).

I don't have the time to reply to all the things you asked, but I do understand the idea behind is an MMORPG worse off for all the controls and rules put in place to "maintain order" so to speak.

So many aspects of the game (And the genre) are so long gone from that core of true freedom though. Taking this one tiny matter and pointing to it as a potential step down a slippery slope seems entirely out of place.

Mystic Fortune is a truly unique power. It came with unique rules.
If you think CoH should strip itself of the rules that confine it... We need to look deeper than this one silly matter.

Anyway, we cold walk through theories and philosophies regarding the possibilities of unbound player interaction. I don't see that as pertinent to the prompt discussion.

Also, isn't it more interaction for player A to ask and Player B to respond Yes or No than for Player A to just give without need for an exchange?

What basis are you using for claiming that one is more interaction?
How does the ability to decline the game mechanic results of the potential exchange actually decrease the element of interaction?
Games are more than the simple plus and minuses.

Anyway, I was going to continue rambling, but I'm not sure there's a point, hehe.

I'm sorry if you took nothing away from my replies than the little bit you quoted. However, the comment about not being impressed with the responses and about their lacking of anything beyond opinion seemed a bit off.

It is a bit difficult having a solid discussion about this, what with people coming in and regurgitating the same things without using what has been explored in previous conversation... especially in a thread with this title.
It's all a bit ridiculous.

This

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Deliberately doing that is harassment, and the game already has a remedy for that: you can validly petition such conduct. That's really dodging the point though, because the question I'm asking is what is the difference between restricting what the game does to you and what the players do to you. Resorting to conduct defined to be actionable griefing only clouds the issue.

and this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Conversely, because players act far more unpredictably than critters, and sometimes far more maliciously, the devs cannot simply allow players to do *anything* to other players. In particular, a decision usually has to be made as to whether to allow non-consensual PvP or not, and usually the decision is to disallow that. That's a compromise, though, against the general principle that if it happens in an MMO, you're supposed to deal with it. And in fact, in declared PvP zones, that rule is still in force 100%: if a player takes action which kills you in a PvP zone, then short of them using a game feature that would have been an exploit anywhere else, the fact that they killed you against your will is not a problem the game intends to address.

dont really seem to gel. Surely if the player's capacity for Malicious behaviour is the reason these controls exist at all, then the ability for something to be used Maliciously, and maliciously enough to warent GM action, cant be somehting that 'only clouds the issue'.

Okay, let's see if we can work this out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville You're assuming that the arguments made are logically sufficient. I'm asserting they are not.

You're assuming that the arguments made are not logical and I am asserting that they are.
The main point here being that I am not assuming that you have been given grand authority to change what the developers have done (Include an option to decline Mystic Fortune). Therefore, while you may be conducting some sort of test/evaluation/challenge for others to convince you... I can only take that so far and I may be conducting my own practice myself. This Mystic Fortune topic has been an annoying one, in my book.
I had an option I was very pleased with. It was taken away due to an exploit. I voiced my concern with one post in beta. I voiced my feedback with one post when it went live.
Then, later on, I ended up replying in discussions that others had started. Keeping it civil and reasonable, while being sent lots of angry and insulting messages from people who simply hated the prompt and didn't care about other people's opinions/preferences.

With all the talk of people "whining" about no prompt... clearly, more has been made of this after the prompt was announced to be put back in.
If I may, let me ask you a very serious question that I thought you may know the answer to...
Why was there a prompt included with Mystic Fortune in the first place? If you do not know directly, why do you think they included a prompt?
This may actually help me understand your own opinion better (And I am simply curious, to boot).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Fair enough. Specify the hurdle you are willing to state that, if I meet it as judged by others, and not yourself, you would agree to change your mind.

I am not entirely sure I am following you, but perhaps this actually answers that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Is Mystic Fortune sufficiently heinous that its clearly an exception, in which case as I said the general principle is still that the power must be shown to actually be an exception, or is the general rule to allow the players control where ever they perceive the desire?

It is not necessarily that it is "heinous", but it is unique and an exception.
Indeed, this seems to have been the main point of contention between us. It is clearly an exception and every time anyone, in the past, suggested that "If this has an option, all powers should" I reminded people that this power is wholly different than others (Based on duration and sticktoitiveness alone, plus the random nature of the power's results).


Bottom line, this is clearly an issue that has opposing personal preferences.
Removing the ability to decline that power leaves one side completely out in the cold.
The theory that this option would lead to an unhealthy sense of entitlement that would bleed over to other aspects of the game does not appear to be true. It existed with an option for all this time and only very briefly without. Now people are clamoring for it to be taken back out again and you are claiming that having an option is bad for the overall life of the game.

The option is not the problem.
The problems are:
1) Some people want to decline the power (Due to several reasons, the most notable is the vast difference in its duration as compared to any other player cast buff... and only a very select few NPC debuffs [what, just three examples?]. Two of which are story driven and in-game canon-related and the others have zero visual effects and can be deleted at the player's choosing).
2) Some people despise having a prompt window.

Both of those are separate issues, yet related.
Both of them are "problems", because both of them have opposing opinions across the playerbase.

The option to decline has been there since April 14th 2009.
The option to delete the Mayhem/Safeguard buffs has been there longer than I know.

Neither have caused a nasty trend towards lack of player created repercussions or interactions.
Actually, I am not sure what, exactly, you think is the real result of the problem you are asking if anyone can convince you does not exist.

Part of this nearly feels like being asked to prove that a particular deity does not exist.

My solution to the only remaining problem is to give people the option to avoid the prompt.
The option to accept and decline the power is already in place and working fine (As it has since it was released). The only remaining problem is some people's preference for no-prompts, which, I can respect.

Honestly, we could make the case that people refusing to accept a simple prompt that is part of a player-to-player interaction is out of line in the face of continuing a multi-player video game community.
I'm not saying that facetiously, I honestly think that player interactions, such as trades, teleportations, team/SG/coallition/friend invites and unrelenting-twenty-minute random player-cast buffs deserve a UI element of some sort in order to handle the interaction.

So, I hope that you find some logic within this post.
Thanks for reading!

For what it's worth, I'm willing to engage in attempting to change your mind, on your terms, and don't find it unreasonable that an attempt to change your mind would be subject to your terms. :P

The issue is basically with the developers being on the hook for delivering the promised experience, even though the players have a hand in shaping it. When players cause other players to have an experience at odds with their prior expectations, the developers have to choose between prohibiting the mode of interaction, or setting a new norm and risking the loss of players for whom that new norm is not enjoyable. The existing norm is that one may be buffed in the shared world and by teammates in instances without consent, but that these buffs last a maximum of 4 minutes and do not persist across sessions. While alone in an instance, a player is inviolate to new external player buffs and can expect to lose any existing ones in 4 minutes or less. Mystic Fortune sets a new norm with a buff that lasts 20 minutes and persists across sessions. (It also has a chance of applying a debuff, or damage, but those are not unique to Mystic Fortune - the duration and persistence are.)

Basically, the prior rule was "after 4 minutes in an instance, your gameplay experience is only affected by your actions, the actions of people you have chosen to interact with via teaming, and the choices of the developers." Sans Mystic Fortune prompt, this rule, which has been true for many years and has had time to become a player expectation, is no longer true. While player actions are the proximal cause of whatever dissatisfaction results, the developers are the ones on the hook for changing the experience.

I agree that in the grand scheme of things, this is a pretty minor alteration. It's not like they've suddenly introduced open-world PvP or automatic assignment teaming or anything of that scale. I personally don't have a problem with it. But it does change the rules, and apparently it changes them enough to make people reconsider whether they want to play a game with this level of player control of their experience. It's not so much that the new position on the continuum of allowable player interaction is objectively better or worse than the prior position - there are many games successfully occupying many positions on that continuum - it's that the position has changed, and those who found the old position acceptable may not find the new one as acceptable. There's always going to be people in the community pushing for a movement in either direction, and potential players waiting for a move toward a position they prefer; whether the positives outweigh the negatives on this move from a game health perspective is something I'm not qualified to address. I'm just trying to prove that the move exists and is nontrivial.

This is very well said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan ... The issue is basically with the developers being on the hook for delivering the promised experience, even though the players have a hand in shaping it. When players cause other players to have an experience at odds with their prior expectations, the developers have to choose between prohibiting the mode of interaction, or setting a new norm and risking the loss of players for whom that new norm is not enjoyable. The existing norm is that one may be buffed in the shared world and by teammates in instances without consent, but that these buffs last a maximum of 4 minutes and do not persist across sessions. While alone in an instance, a player is inviolate to new external player buffs and can expect to lose any existing ones in 4 minutes or less. Mystic Fortune sets a new norm with a buff that lasts 20 minutes and persists across sessions. (It also has a chance of applying a debuff, or damage, but those are not unique to Mystic Fortune - the duration and persistence are.) Basically, the prior rule was "after 4 minutes in an instance, your gameplay experience is only affected by your actions, the actions of people you have chosen to interact with via teaming, and the choices of the developers." Sans Mystic Fortune prompt, this rule, which has been true for many years and has had time to become a player expectation, is no longer true. While player actions are the proximal cause of whatever dissatisfaction results, the developers are the ones on the hook for changing the experience.

There is another unique aspect to Mystic Fortune that deserves to be included in this.

It is a power cast on an ally that does not require an AT choice, a Power Set choice nor an actual Power Slot selection.

It not only is unique in its duration and random nature (And an exception as a power that may grant a debuff unto an ally), but it also requires zero in-game choice/payment.

This also has the result of making the power rather rampant.
Among the efficiency and number-based preference of playstyles, it is simply a no-brainer of "why not?", as opposed to something that is earned through a player's specific choices for that character.
A "free" power to be cast on allies.

Mystic Fortune is, indeed, an exception, if not utterly unique.

No, that's the method those I'm trying to avoid tend to use.

The city bus is not a pleasant place.

LEGION OF VALOR - Be a part of the Legend!