Inherent Fitness

So you argued it for a while, then when others came in and pointed out the flaws you considered the arguement pointless. Was this because you were wrong or because you think Arcanville does not know what she is talking about and others will no longer listen to "reason"? Just curious.

No, I wasn't arguing. As I said when I started the thread, I was only expressing my opinion, I don't have to argue anything. Arguing over an opinion is pointless. The opinion itself isn't.

I have tremendous respect for Arcanaville's abilities and knowledge. However, she isn't the Oracle of Delphi, and I'm still allowed to disagree. She thinks the Hero system couldn't be adapted to a video game (if I understood correctly). I think it could. It would take a lot of work, to be sure, but I don't see it necessarily being impossible.

Nothing is impossible It just takes someone committed to the adaptation process that understands what will work in a computer environment.

Even the best attempts would require modifications to the system, but players would be very sympathetic of that process as long as the end result was fun and "empathically" similar to the game it was based off. This is where that "other" Hero MMO screwed up. The "canonical" background was not enough. Players were expecting more of the actual game to show thru. This was less about the inability to re-produce the PNP game close enough to impress the target audience, and more about not trying to do it at all, presumably because the final results would have been unrecognizable OR "broken".

One of these Days ULTIMO_ , we will see someone actually pull-off a "skill-based" MMO.
The biggest hurdle to this has always been "time-to-market". Games, and MMOs in particular, are about making money. So the longer they stay in developement, the farther away they are from "profit". It's my biggest hope that some independantly wealthy enthusiast will one day release this kind of game. One where they spend "years" testing the skills-trees to form a truely balanced system. But as long as mainstream game developers continue to "Rush" their product to market without complete testing, we may never see it.

"Failure breeds contempt", as they say. Future developers are smart. They look to other's successes and failures when designing their newest offerings.
That other game has created a "set-back" to future attempts IMHO.

Regardless of what is being written about, this is a remarkably convenient position for anyone to take (note that "convenient" is stated with sarcasm). "Look, I have an opinion, but you can't dispute it, as it's an opinion!"

The second you put your opinion out there, you're wanting people to interact with it. You don't get to determine how they interact with it. You want to have that opinion kept intact without interaction: be that argument or agreement? Keep it to yourself.

I don't even care about the particular discussion going on here, I just had to point this out. If you don't want to argue about anything (especially on internet forums), don't put your opinion out there.

yes it does. you have no proof that what you say is true. you have never given any at all. your opinion has been proven wrong by proof many times. stop this silly argument now.

you don't like the change because it still doesn't help with your inability to solve your own end problems. that is what makes your opinion invalid.

There are different kinds of opinions. Some can be demonstrably proved wrong, others cannot.

Opinions about other people can be and are often just plain wrong. Especially when the holder of that opinion presupposes that they know what another person's "true" motives are. That assumes one can see into the mind of another and that is not possible.

Opinions on religious, moral and philosophical matters are harder to judge the rightness and wrongness of. However, such opinions are often incoherent, contradictory and hypocritical. Not all opinions on such matters hold equal weight.

Opinions on technical matters are also often wrong. If your opinion is that the Hero System, as written, can be implemented in an MMO with existing technology, you are wrong. Because the system, as written, includes directives to the GM about how to control abuses of certain powers. GMs must exercise story-based judgments on powers, which cannot currently be done by a computer running an MMO. That is, running a Hero campaign requires a human GM to make rulings on whether a power works or even applies. No AI exists at this time which can do that.

Running a tabletop MMO is basically the same as writing an interactive comic book in which the character and the GM give each other ideas and things can go in completely different directions. By their very nature, MMOs have canned stories and player's options are limited to a very few actions.

Furthermore, there are technical problems that simply forbid the implementation of many of the powers. For example, the Hero System has powers such as Teleportation at any range (if you pay the points), Time Travel (if you pay the points), and Faster than Light travel.

That means you would have to have maps for the entire Earth, the entire solar system, even the galaxy. And you would have to have maps for every country in every era on earth (we'll give the developers a pass on eras on other planets).

If you have a character in a Hero campaign that decides to go to Moscow hundreds of years ago and assassinate Ivan the Terrible, you can attempt to do so, even if the GM had not considered that. You cannot do that in an MMO unless the action is anticipated by the developers. The setup for that scenario would takes months of development. Multiply that by billions and you'll see why you can't implement the Hero System.

No MMO can encompass the Hero System because it uses the entirety of human imagination as its canvas.

But your dislike of the Fitness change is based on an assumption* that can be proved untrue. A logical continuum to this is that you dislike it just to dislike it, with no real reason to do it.



*Assumption: Endurance is unmanageable. If endurance really was unmanageable, everyone would be having endurance problems. Even one special case where endurance is manageable proves this blanket statement wrong. I have multiple characters who never run out of endurance even when not using inspirations, unless they run into a Sapper. Assumption is proved untrue.

So if someone shows a you a build that will never run out of endurance, that is not sufficient to you? You have been shown builds that can do that, I have seen them in the same threads.

Do you even read what you type, Ultimo_?

Do YOU read what I type? I said a personal value judgement can't be argued because it's PERSONAL. You may think the builds I've been shown can sufficiently mitigate endurance issues. That's YOUR assessment. YOUR value judgement. Mine is different.

I completely understand you.

You, it seems, do not know what the word sufficient actually means.

If you NEVER need endurance, how is that not sufficient? Your opinion does not change the meaning of words, or perhaps it does in your mind...

There is no way to make powers use NO endurance. There is no way to NEVER need endurance. Either way, I've never suggested that would be appropriate. Straw Man fails.

Now you are just being evasive ans obtuse, refusing to answer a simple question.

There are builds you have been shown for your characters that would allow them to never run out of endurance using good attack and defenses.

How is that not sufficient for you?

He wants the very concept of endurance usage gone. It's good enough for PnP games, but has no place in computer games. Sadly, hundreds, if not thousands, of computer games use variations on this mechanic.

Also, since it's his opinion you can't prove him wrong. It doesn't matter if the sub-arguments he uses are demonstrably composed of bovine droppings, since they're part of his opinion they're not wrong either.

i think the sticking point here is that most people are unable to accept the premise that opinions, even any factual errors presented as part of the opinion, are incapable of being wrong. On the plus side having it finally stated so clearly means that anyone who cares about having a useful conversation, discussion or debate can now simply ignore any thread or post by Ultimo_. If someone honestly believes that simply by being presented as an opinion that any position or stand on any issue cannot be falsified then there is no point to engaging in any conversation with them.

Simply say, "ookaay...", and move on to a more useful dialogue.

"That's nice, dear." Also works.



Just because in my opinion* it's fun let's apply that "opinions cannot be wrong" method to another arena....
*bzzzt bzzzt*
Park Ranger: "Hello? Yellowstone National Park Service."
Demented Moogle: "Hello. i wanted to warn you that in my opinion Velociraptor attacks are real danger to hikers in the park."
PR: "Uh, sir, there have never been any velociraptor attacks in the park. They died out millions of years ago."
DM: "That's not true. It's my opinion that 37 people were attacked and partially eaten by Velociraptors last year. They are a threat to hikers in the park and there should be Velociraptor patrols."
PR: "There were 37 wild dog attacks in the country last year. Velociraptors had nothing to do with it."
DM: "No, it was Velociraptors. It's part of my opinion that those attacks were done by Velociraptors, and opinions aren't facts, so they can't be proven wrong. I've been hiking past the Yellowstone National Park sign for 129 years, so my opinion is worth more than your 'facts.' Velociraptors ate the rest of my family."
PR: "Sir, this park was created slightly over 128 years ago, so I doubt you were hiking past the park sign then, even if I accept that you're over 130 years old."
DM: "Well it's my opinion that I am and I was. Since it's my opinion it can't be wrong."
PR: "Thank you for expressing your concerns sir. We will take them under advisement."
*click*
Park Ranger 2: "Who was that?"
PR: "Some demented lunatic."
PR2: "Oh?"
PR: "He was worried about being attacked by dinosaurs in the park."
PR2: "..."
PR: "Yeah, exactly."


*Remember, opinions can't be wrong if they're opinions.

Ok, let me get this clear...

Builds with all of the key powers from their both sets that are also able to run a good attack chain all while never running out of Endurance unless facing Sappers or something are not "sufficiently mitigating endurance drain"?

Good luck trying to convince us to have Endurance totally removed, then.

Truth be told, the only reason I have posted more in this thread is an attempt to understand the mindset/outlook Ultimo_ presents in an attempt to further my knowledge of cognitive dissonance.

Having to deal with people on a daily basis that use emotional feelings in place of logic and reason, I am always interested in how they come to the conclusions and opinions they hold.

In reality, it's very difficult to pry out the why from them because they tend to think 'because it's how I feel' is a valid, logical answer.

Brain chemistry is simply fascinating to me. Being a gamer, where rules logic is king in terms of implementation, but yet making decisions based entirely upon feelings is a mental juxtaposition I love to explore.

Fair enough. i find it interesting myself. i edited my post to include the same style of argument presented in a slightly different context simply because i found the idea amusing.

to you perhaps.

it can have a great deal of impact on the perceptions of others regarding how reasonable and valid your position is.

This is always a tricky part of anything that does at some level come down to opinions about what's better, whatever "better" may mean (more enjoyable, etc.)

There are several things that I think frequently get overlooked, both by those who present statements of opinion and those who rebut them. One of the most likely to cause an argument is forgetting to qualify opinion so that it appears as a statement of fact. Sometimes the implication should be clear, but other times it isn't, and few things seem to rile people up as opinion seemingly stated as fact.

But there are subtler bits even to things stated as opinions. Except for very subjective things, like what tastes or smells are pleasant, or what facial features are most attractive, opinions about more complex concepts are often constructed on a foundation of facts.

Let me give an example. "Widgets are commonly available. Widgets have been shown to occasionally cause blindness in children. I believe therefore that Widgets should be treated as a controlled product, and not be made generally available." There are two statements of seemingly observable facts in there, and one statement of opinion. Opinions stated in this way are a cross between a subjective judgment and a logical conclusion. It takes objective, factual information and feeds it into a subjective conclusion.

This is important, because if someone can show that the objective information is incorrect, or is incomplete in a way that could significantly change its interpretation, it could completely change the subjective conclusion drawn from those facts. This is the usually unstated nature of many debates about opinions. People argue that their opinions can't be wrong, but their opinions can be formed on the basis of (or sometimes defended with) objective "facts" which are actually in question. If you can invalidate the objective foundation of an opinion, then you can at least show that the opinion should be re-evaluated in light of new factual information.

Honestly, Ultimo_'s statements of opinion could probably stand as just that if stated in a stand-alone fashion. Maybe a lot of people wouldn't agree that they'd like to see the game work as he does, but that would truly come down to competing opinions, possibly taking the form of a "vote" thread, where people post to inform of their own opinions on the matter. I've rarely, if ever, seen Ultimo_ do that. Instead he usually tries to defend his opinions against being outvoted by providing objective defense drawn from observable phenomena from the game. The issue arises that other posters find these phenomena contrary to their own experiences. That leaves his defense of his opinion open to attack on the basis that it's founded on incorrect factual observations.

Now, if Ultimo_'s opinion predated the observations and the observations simply reinforce the opinion in his mind, that may not be true. As usually presented that seems hard to accept, for me at least. The observations seem to come first, and an opinion seems to be drawn from them. After all, we're talking about playing the game and then deciding how it should be different. You have to observe how the game actually plays before you can decide that, in your opinion, it should play differently.

I can accept this. Opinions may not be wrong, but they can be crazy. Steadfastly stating something that is an opinion which is based on blatantly false circumstances is part of what defines insanity. Believing that lies are truths or that truths are lies is crazy. And that is my opinion, so I know I am right.

*edited because I incorrectly quoted Schismatrix*

It can't be adapted into an MMO (I never said it couldn't be made into a single player game) because:

a) The advantage/disadvantage system is logically incompatible with the free choice of combat situations intrinsic to virtually all combat-based MMOs. The same reason makes it difficult to design a reward system around custom AE missions when players can engineer critters with irrelevant strengths and targeted weaknesses. Good luck fixing that.

b) By its own admission its not balanced when the system is used in an unrestricted fashion, and human judgment isn't really achievable with current technology when it comes to build decisions as complex as that offered by the HERO system. Just the mitigation powers alone highlight the problem: most versions of the HERO system I've seen going all the way back to the original Champions rulebooks warn GMs to be very careful about allowing players to stack defenses; its considered an optional place for the GM to prohibit player activity that the rules otherwise say is legal (and Champions Online amazingly fell into the exact same trap when they designed their own totally different system and originally allowed players to stack every single defensive power). So the system itself says to use judgment that a computer won't have in an MMO or you'll have game-breaking situations arising. QED.

c) The HERO system has known one-dimensional combat optimizers, particularly surrounding the mechanics of killing attacks. Difficult to get around, but not impossible in a game managed by a human being that can explicitly craft encounters that sidestep those known overoptimizations. Impossible for a computer to do so in a multiplayer game where the computer would have to account for multi-dimensional optimization among many interacting players.

d) The HERO system fails to account for non-linear stacking, even separate from the defensive powers. This is a deal breaker.


This is not to say that a points-based combat system is impossible. Actually, I've thought about how to construct one of those that would work within the confines of an MMO for quite some time. In fact, even within the confines of *this* MMO. However, starting with the HERO system is a non-starter. You'd be better off starting from scratch.

You could say that's just an opinion, and everyone is free to disagree. However, it comes on the heels of a lot of actual work analyzing points-based powers frameworks. Its not just a guess. Its an extremely informed judgment I'd put up against any actual game designer that wants to debate the point.


For the record, I'm not just convinced about what a points-based HERO-like system *cannot* be, I've also looked at it enough to have a pretty good idea of what it *has to be*. A points-based powers system for any combat-based MMO with foreseeable technology would have to incorporate four features that are, I believe, non-negotiable:

1. Non-situationally manipulatable disadvantages. The only such system I'm aware of are primarily opportunity-cost disdvantage systems. Which means, in effect: exclusive skill trees. Actual disadvantages are extremely difficult to make work.

2. Limited proportional returns. Aka the misnamed "diminishing returns" effect. Points must be calibrated to deliver the same proportional value or less across the entire system. This means no accelerating mechanics, and extremely strong controls on multiplicative effects on critical balance-significant metrics.

3. Provable offensive/defensive balance. Alternatively, multiple points currency for defense vs offense. Bonus trick issue: powers other than direct damage dealers and passive defenses which offer both mitigation and offense would need to be handled under such a system.

4. Randomized combat. Predictable combat such as that offered by City of Heroes, where every attack does the exact same damage every time its used in the same circumstances (as opposed to PnP systems where attacks do Nd6 damage or other randomized effects) is too gameable in a pure points-based power generation system. It allows for discrete optimizations that are different from statistical average ones that hide within the combat system. An example that actually occurs in CoX: farming builds designed with *just enough* AoE damage to defeat minions and/or LTs of a particular critter type in farming missions, so that they maximize return on damage: they don't require more shots than necessary, and don't do overkill damage that doesn't generate a return.


If someone that demonstrate that *any* of these four is not necessary for a points-based power generation combat system, I would love to hear it. I doubt anyone is going to be able to do so, however.