Where's my kryptonite?

I'd rather have it all. But I know you'll think I'm messing with you if I said that.

Ultimately we are going to get the things the DEVS want to give us regardless if we like it or not. *shrugs*

I've played table-top RPGs for years, where disadvantages are common. Given that experience, I think your idea would probably backfire.

Disadvantages work fine in the comics where a writer gets to choose what happens and in table-top RPGs where a human GM likewise chooses the story and adjudicates all the action. Story and role-playing based considerations will always trump the numbers when push comes to shove in comics and TTRPGs.

In a computer-based game there is no writer or GM to moderate the use of disadvantages. That means players will just min/max their characters to do away with the limitations while retaining any positive effects bestowed by the disadvantage. We see this already with the existing powersets, most of which already have inherent disadvantages of the sort disadvantages would impose.

The most common one is knockback: every non-melee character (and some with melee powersets like Fire and Dark) has no inherent KB protection. As soon as I can, I get a -KB IO or slot Kinetic Crash. Getting knocked around constantly does not add to my character's personality or backstory, it just gets me killed. I doubt I'm the only who does this, and I'd guess that you also do it.

Because the game is so flexible and has so many ways of getting around our character's limitations, it's most likely that giving us some advantage for some disadvantage would be just another way to min/max the character to the utmost. With Incarnate slots coming out the opportunities for eliminating the negative effects of disadvantages will only grow.

That means disadvantages would probably have the opposite of the effect you intend: characters taking them would become more powerful in one aspect, while eliminating the weakness the disadvantage is supposed to impose.

In TTRPGs the GM will simply stop you from doing this because it violates the intent of taking the disadvantage in the first place. In an MMO, such a tactic will just make the players angry and causes harsh feelings and cries of NERF!

In the end, disadvantages that provide benefits would wind up being another source of exploits and would only result in a great deal of rancor as the devs closed those exploits.

The internet... its like a magical wonderland where anything can happen. And then get pooped on.

Exactly. My idea isn't to gimp everyone, but to provide invention enhancements that allow players to gimp themselves up front with slightly better rewards later in the set bonuses than normally are given.


Also plenty of people have mentioned in this thread the idea that many AT/Powerset combos already have built-in vulnerabilities (i.e. stone/fire tanks have serious problems versus psi damage). That's all fine and well. But when people like Next_Player suggest Disadvantage systems they are usually asking for optional choices to allow them to CHOOSE which things they are going to be vulnerable to, not just let the game decide that for them.

People overreact to everything that doesn't offer pure benefit and win to them. And even in such cases, some still overreact and complain.

Nice attitude. I wish I knew what your kryptonite was... I'd have brought some with me.

How has that worked for me? Pretty much fine so far. I have a level 50 controller with a purple set and a couple other partial sets, and the rest are all basic IOs. And it doesn't hurt my gameplay at all. I also have a level 50 tanker who I wish had a little more recovery bonus, but I'm not overly concerned about it. I have exactly one special invention enhancement (the Gausian's chance of Build Up slotted in Invincibility, wheeee!) and I have have fun regardless. Actually, I end up trying to get more out of enhancements on my lower level characters... because they need the help. :P So, as far as I've experienced the game, if there's an obtainable benefit in the game, its up to you if you think you need it --and if there's suddenly new obtainable benefits that come with a disadvantage tacked on to it, I don't see how that would force anyone to choose it over the already established benefits of the existing IO enhancements.

Well, I specifically didn't want to get into numbers because I know no matter what I say, someone will find a better example to counter an argument. But the devs, knowing the game far better than we the players do, could take into account probabilities of certain damage types and which cause more damage and so on and adjust the penalties and benefits accordingly. So a set giving vulnerability to ice might offer less tangible reward later in the set bonuses than a set which gives vulnerability to fire which can be found in abundance and usually does more damage than ice.

Well, that's certainly an opinion. It doesn't mean you are right, though.

Right, so all invulnerability tankers are essentially vulnerable to psi damage... which doesn't actually make it a "kryptonite" since everyone has the same limitation. I mean, if kryptonite affected Captain Marvel, Atom Smasher, and Cyborg the same way, then I could see your point.

Okay, sure. Now how does that make my ice blaster weaker against fire? Everyone's argument against seems to based on the melee protection sets. But you don't have to be Superman to have a weakness.

I'm suggesting a benefit to go along with a voluntarily chosen limitation. Again, your example only works with the melee protection sets. Characters of a non-melee AT have no such choice. Thanks for trying, move along please.

See, that's just added extra effort to devise and implement a whole new system. That's why I recommended it as a new line of IO enhancements using the set bonus system. Its an established system that already works.

Yeah, as I said before, my OP was just generalizations to get the idea out there. I didn't say specifically that I wanted to be weak to ice to get some benefit... however, some people may want to. And any numbers I may offer as suggestions are just to illustrate a point, not what I think is appropriate benefit/penalty balance. Clearly, someone more knowledgeable than I --or you for that matter-- (namely the devs) should make decisions about how much reward a given penalty is worth, and just how much penalty should be allowed.

Substantial coding work is the whole reason I suggested the idea as a new line of invention enhancements. It would only require use of an established part of the game. And any benefits gained from taking any penalties would not be in addition to set bonuses, they would just be taking the place of other set bonuses you could choose from. I thought it a simple and elegant solution.


I'm actually in agreement that penalty for no added bonus would actually be used by very few. The game has always revolved around the risk vs. reward principle, so if you increase risk then you should get some sort of reward. How much risk and reward would be up to the devs to decide.

[QUOTE=newchemicals;3275178]If you want kryptonite just play a blaster and don't slot your attacks. Set mission to +4x8 and fight malta or KoA.
That's not kryptonite, that's insanity. You fail.

You know, anything (that isn't a farm) that gets players to actually use AE is a good thing, in my opinion. As for avoiding weaknesses, who says anyone needs AE for that. I avoid Malta because I hate sappers. I know people that refuse missions with Carnies. I'm sure most people try to avoid something in the game. But while some damage types (ice or psi, for example) are easier, others types are more prolific and can be found in a wide variety of enemy groups.

I hear you. However, that's not a character hindrance... that's a player hindrance. Its not the same thing. But if you don't like enhancement sets that give a penalty in addition to benefits, no one would force you to take them.

That's all well and good when you deal with something as specific as Superman's kryptonite, but as no one is 100% immune to any damage type in the game, it doesn't really compare to comic book storytelling.

Moderation is already possible within the enhancement system. You can only gain a given bonus up to 5 times, and you're assuming that limitations can be min/maxed away without actually seeing any hard numbers. So based on that, I could just as easily say its impossible to min/max away the penalty regardless that I don't have any numbers to back it up. When we both actually see numbers, THEN we can see which of us is actually right.

Penalties don't go away because you've accrued more bonuses. It just means your benefit in the area where your penalties are could have been higher. And again, unless we actually see a system implemented and actual numbers are given, any supposition of how min/maxing will be affected are just that: supposition. Anyway, right now we already have a system of benefits only. I fail to see how adding more enhancement sets (which they'll do anyway with or without my weakness suggestion), will make worse what's already in place. Its not like I'm trying to suggest "Hey, let us take a -10% ice resistance in exchange for making us invulnerable to everything else."

MMO players... exploiting EVERYTHING since... EVER.

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow City of Heroes is a game about freedom of expression and variety of experiences far more so than it is about representing any one theme, topic or genre.

Regen, Dark Armor, Super Reflexes, Shield Defense, and Willpower all beg to differ that psi is not kryptonite to everyone.

What you're asking for is a basic component of most pen-and-paper superhero RPG's, such as Hero System, GURPS, etc. Most have the concept of 'disadvantages', that make characters weaker in some ways in exchange for being stronger in others (for a point-based system, disads give more points). For a p-n-p game, it can work quite well.

But it would be a nightmare to implement on an MMO. Disads open up whole new aspects to min/maxing. It can be acceptable in a pen and paper game, where a live GM is looking at every character and setting up each game session with the specific characters playing it in mind. That does not work in this setting.

as stated before, this works for comics and table top rpg's, but will not work in an online game. it would require to much time and resources to even come up with a working presentation that would not be used on the scale that you are thinking. this time could be well spent on the devs making new content and/or revamping old content. the amount of balances needed for this kind of idea would make any of the bonuses/disads negligable.

Actually I think the Rularuu Eyeballs are pretty much THE Kryptonite for most of the toughest characters except Controllers/Dominators (yay Mez!).

Their attacks are weirdly typed meaning most sets won't have major resistances to it besides Stone, the Bosses hit incredibly hard meaning one or two can spike you or your pets down and they've got enough To-Hit to ignore defenses.

I so hate internet memes. They start out kind of funny or possibly even clever but goes further and further into the annoying territory the more often they're used. And don't get me started on people that leak this BS into normal speech. Oh man, when people *say* facepalm or 'pwned' it's enough to make me want to resort to violence. Uhg...

/impersonal rant

Firstly, why would anyone be against micromanagement if it provides options not once available? Oh, let's not bother micromanaging character costumes and limit us all to 1 instead of 5. Let's not micromanage multiple builds, hurling us back to only a single build rather than the *option* to have another.

Yes, micromanagement can be tedious and time consuming, but it also comes with the prospects of a unique, personalized character/experience.

Personal perception. It can be a curse.

There's so much wrong with the thought of not giving people more options because their perception will perceive it as mandatory.

My opinion? Who cares what min/maxers do!? It's not like they're unpredictable. They'll look for the easiest road. But for this game, it's a catch22. The players will whine about another option for min/maxers to exploit (*ring* *ring* Hello! This is the Incarnate system with Alpha Slot on conference. We'd like to have a word with you) yet if you introduce measures to limit exploitation, people will complain you're limiting them...when in fact you're giving them more options in the first place.

A disadvantage system. I would like one but only with some kind of advantage attached. What about exploiters? Limit the system. You want to be weak to ice damage because you think that's the mildest disadvantage? Implement more enemies with ice attacks! I can think of an additional enemy for nearly any villain group that can do ice damage beyond just handing them a cryo-round or ice grenade (although it'd be hard for some groups since the majority of the enemies are carbon-copy gun shooters). Yeah, you can attempt to avoid certain enemies. Great. That's an option, but that's all you if you want your hero or villain to go shaking in their boots and running for the hills at the mention of enemies. Only you will know your character's a coward Those that want to customize their characters further *and* give themselves a challenge will face whatever comes at them.

But you're not finding an exploit in the game, you're exposing the fact that there aren't enough ice enemies.

You could even implement a Nemesis system along side it. No, not a vanilla villain that pops up on your mission and wrings his hands maniacally. Perhaps the villain could have informed your enemy before hand of your weakness, maybe even going so far as to give the group weapons/items to fend you off!

But that said, a plain boring -stat weakness is weak and uninteresting. Such a system is so plain...so boring it might as well not be there. I wouldn't bother even if it would help usher in a revamp in the enemies so they don't have to rely on cheap cheat tactics like idiotically long duration stun grenades or sapping guns that'll leave you dry within seconds.

As unlikely as it'd be, however, I still think it'd be a good avenue to add to the game if it makes player characters, NPCs and battles more dynamic. The idea has merit if you're willing to actually consider the possibilities.

I didn't mean to say you started it, Lothic. We just already did this once before and I wanted to cut to the chase and pick up where we left off

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.

I said it before and I'll say it again - I don't argue against your suggestion because I CAN'T argue against your suggestion. I'm indifferent to it, but that doesn't mean I would specifically be opposed to implementing it.

All I'm saying is that while I wouldn't oppose you, you're very unlikely to convince anyone in power. Hell, if it came to that, I'd show my support to the idea because... Well, why not? But as you yourself have admitted, it's highly unlikely.

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.

I am principally against anything tedious and time consuming being an acceptable part of any game I care to participate in. I don't see what multiple builds and costume have to do with it, however. Each build is akin to a different character, as is a different costume. Each of those requires no more micromanagement to have. Not unless you try to design each for a specific task and try to always have the optimal build for the task, which... I don't actually think is feasible with how the timer is set up.

What I would consider micromanagement is if we were one day given the option to specify our percentage enhancement by typing in a number, instead of having to apply enhancements, with a set total for each power instead of six slots. For instance, you can have 500% ANYTHING in a power, so you could throw in 50% of everything and not have it diminished, or 250% of two things and have those diminished by ED to however much they drop to. THAT would be micromanagement. Sure I don't HAVE to do it and I can just keep using regular enhancements... But I don't feel like getting locked out of even more extra performance yet again.

No, that's a simple case of smart design. Give people the tools to ruin their own fun and they will ruin their own fun. This has been proven time and time again. Furthermore, I am getting sick and tired of missing out on everything powerful in this game because it's hidden behind time sinks and micromanagement. Call me malicious, but I'd rather we didn't get any nicer things if the nice things we could be getting are continually unavailable to me, such that people can alternately scoff at me for not having them and mockingly tell me to "then just don't."

I don't want any more Inventions in this game. The current mess of min/maxing is big enough to bother me that I'm ignoring it, but not quite big enough to make me feel like I'm missing the point of the game. I do not want more like that. At all. Ever.

And that's what it comes down to. Advantage/disadvantage systems come down to just that - more boring stats. That's all they've ever amounted to. That's all they can ever amount to without essentially designing a brand new game. That's BORING. It introduces another set of numbers I have to remember, it introduces another set of variables I have to pay attention to and it makes the system even more complicated. And for what? So my orange numbers can be bigger and my red numbers smaller? That ain't worth it. At all. And that's, in a nutshell, what the entire Inventions system is.

Beyond that, you assume I want NPCs and battles to be more dynamic. I don't, and specifically because I know that "more dynamic" just means "more cheap." Difficulty and complexity in this game comes from cheating enemies that hit through your defences and disable your powers. That's fake difficulty in the extreme. I'm not interested in more Void Hunters who shoot me through my resistance, chain-stun me and knock me down. That's not dynamic. That's just cheap.

The only way I can see an advantage/disadvantage system work is if it were written into the story, such as a tech-savvy character being able to hack a computer whereas a dumb brute would have to bring in a scientist, while the dumb brute can just knock down a stone wall whereas the tech-savvy character would have to take the long way around. THAT kind of system I would appreciate, but THAT kind of system is not doable in this game. Or indeed almost any game I've seen to date, Arcanum included.

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.

Yep. My /SR scrapper gets shut down due to earth thorn casters or the rularuu eyeballs. I don't avoid them, but I cringe whenever I see them.

Now I'm not sure if you're discussing the issue out of concern for balance or some such or plainly arguing out of spite because some pissant l33T player ruffled your feathers.

On one hand, you complain about tedious character generation systems, such as a tenuous stat slider that gives the illusion of complexity when, in fact, sliders like that are probably way simpler than the enhancement system we have. Do you realize you've probably memorized how much (or ballpark) schedule A, B, C and D values and the ED cap line for enhancements of those values? Or the values of DO, TO and SO enhancements? That isn't more complex than simply adjusting a slider for the values so you at least know where you stand rather than guess/memorization work?

Then on the other hand, you argue how cheap the enemies are and that they aren't real challenge but cheap challenge. Well, the NPCs have no choice right now. They *have* to be cheap otherwise we'd mop the floor with them every time. It's no more cheap than invincible bosses that only have 1 point of their body during a particular duration of time that's vulnurable in nearly every game on the market. Quick-time events? Cheap substitute to make you feel like skill was required. It's all the same.

You're basically self-limiting your perception of any possibilities that might expand a game's ability to simulate combat while at the same time reprimanding the games for its limits. Dynamic does not equal cheap unless you can't be arsed with being creative enough to think outside the box.

That's more a skill system than an advantage/disadvantage system. Having a hacker that can handle a particular situation while someone else has to do it another way isn't an advantage to one and disadvantage to another. That's just giving one character a capability they didn't have...like one being able to fly and fight airborne enemies but the other can only run around fast.

Not that such a system is a bad idea. When it's brought up, I enjoy discussing it. You might want to post up another thread on it since we can't bump old posts on the subject. And I believe it *can* be possible to implement in this game...it'd just be a good deal of work. How it would be received by the players is another matter...

To conclude, while I'm arguing the possibility of an advantage/disadvantage system, I'm thinking from the perspective of something other than a vanilla +/- stat system. That's boring to me, and gameable. Wile I'm arguing the point, I'm thinking about something more robust, like the suggested 'Tags System' I suggested in another thread. Usually I go on a long post explaining an idea but I'll spare you. In a good advantage/disadvantage system, you can *try* to 'game' it to get the best buff, but there will always be that group (or groups) that will return the favor and there wouldn't be a way around it except perhaps running away.

Yeah, your right, the OP offered a choice, I was one of the ones wrong here, and yes, I know about comics and weaknesses in comics and that this game was based off comics. Also there is the fact that there already ARE weaknesses in this game, but they are forced onto the playerbase not chosen by them... I take back my earlier statement that this thread is full of fail, I was just a bit upset about playing my Khelds and how after about 4-5 attacks in human form on my 28 WS I am tired, yet I can last slightly longer on my PB, that is my WS weakness, running out of endurance too soon. but it is from a choice I made based on bad advice I got from another WS player that told me I would get Stygian Circle that would let me get endurance and health from the dead bodies of enemies and that I did not need to take fitness because of it. This person was obviously a teamer and did not take into account my playstyle of soloing, cause Stygian Circle helps, but unless you have lots of dead enemies around, you get very little endurance from them, and running out of endurance before I am able to even kill the small mob that I am fighting atm is my WS biggest weakness, which is why she is shelved waiting for I19 and the inherent fitness pool.