Thanks for all the stuff, can you do it better?
By
Ad Astra,
Posted on: 2012-08-13 09:23 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
I made it a point to emphasize this during the beta for "another game" but the HERO system was incredibly broken. The authors even say so in the manuals: its one of the few PnP games that actually warns GMs which parts of the game are dangerous to even use without strict oversight by the GMs. Damage mitigation in particular.|
Originally Posted by Blue_Centurion
Yes, this. The old Hero system stuff was wonderful, and you could see the beautifulness in it. I could create anything in it. That kind of flexibility is a dream, but I think it's a dream that will be coming to our computers, or gaming consoles, or whatever we have in a few years.
|
HERO got away with being incredibly broken specifically because nobody played the books, they played the game as managed by a human being that referred to the books. HERO was powerful for its expressive range: you could build anything in it. Including session-breaking things that the GMs had to moderate. Which was their job. The job of the system was to provide structure to the game for the GM to use.
We'll be able to translate something like HERO into a computer MMO just as soon as we can translate human GMs into computer MMOs. And not one day earlier.
We don't judge PnP game systems by their edge cases. We judge them by their core ability to support entertaining gaming sessions. And HERO was great for that: when the GM and the players cooperated, the system could create almost anything they wanted within reasonable limits. And the solution to a player trying repeatedly to break the game system is to stop inviting them to play anymore, and there's immense social pressure on players not to do that. That resolution system isn't workable in the general case in a computer MMO, because that social pressure doesn't exist.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
There are a couple of other features I find interesting; first, that there is only two rather mild limits on which powers can be used together -- the 7 active/7 passive limit and the 'elite' class of power which players are limited to one and one of. Second, that players are expected to eventually acquire every power in the game.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I can say - at least from what I've seen so far - there's nothing obviously innovative about its core power system, because its fundamentally a point-based skill tree system and not a freeform power system.
|
It isn't freeform in the sense of a game where players generate their own powers from behaviors that are combined according to rules, but that's merely a difference of scalar from players generating builds from the class of all existing powers. I think there's something like, uh... 650-ish powers in the game, so a game that limited players to three powers they could generate from seven elements in combinations of... um, 3? should in theory be no harder to make.
Which, sure, I see how that might seem underwhelming to players. But differences of kind, not type.
Edit : Whoops, just saw,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Fundamentally, that's a point-based attribute system mapped to an ability system.
|
Quote:
And you married an editor. For shame.|
Originally Posted by Blue_Centurion
To be extremely clear, the heart of you're argument seems to be that I am demanding something.
|
Although you use it extensively in your initial post, so I'd assume familiarity, verbal irony can briefly be described as using tone or context to indicate a sentiment different than or even the opposite of what is being explicitly stated. Sarcasm, for instance. Here's an example of a sarcastic statement:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blue_Centurion
Very flexible. Right up until it gets so rigid it calcifies before my eyes.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blue_Centurion
because they have "balanced" the sets to have animations and durations, and etc. so that each set is "perfectly balanced' and its a "cottage rule" and "cottages are what will build the village on." Nevermind that every set is not "balanced" to each other.
|
So we can see that although the author is making the explicit statements,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blue_Centurion
please let me tailor some of the great stuff you have in this game
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blue_Centurion
if this was just one thing different I could live with it
|
Quote:
| Let me tailor some of the "great" stuff you have in this "game," because I can't live with it. |
Quote:
Why not pedantic?|
Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
And so that's irony, our word of the day. Tomorrow's word: Disingenuity! Get a head-start by looking it up now!
|
They've explained repeatedly what they intended. You can think it's backpedaling, you can think that they're lying, or whatever. You're the one insisting on dragging it out, though, so who is really creating the drama?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brillig
It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.
|
Quote:
That's what people are generally thinking when it comes to free form systems: the ability to take any amount of any kind of power they want, and modify those powers to have whatever effects they want, with the only real limits being the absolute limits of the ability system and the fixed resources granted to perform those customizations.|
Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
Well, sure. The alternative is basically letting the players (or forcing the players to) code their own game, since you're encompassing literally anything with discrete elements.
|
In other words, rather like if City of Heroes had no primary or secondary powersets, it only had a large number of power pools, and every power effect including damage and buffing were encapsulated into invention procs and globals with a cost tied to leveling XP.
I think anyone who thinks that's impossible doesn't understand the nature of the solution, and anyone who thinks that's easy doesn't understand the nature of the problem.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
So is it easily impossible, or impossibly easy?
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I think anyone who thinks that's impossible doesn't understand the nature of the solution, and anyone who thinks that's easy doesn't understand the nature of the problem.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Softcapping an Invuln is fantastic. Softcapping a Willpower is amazing. Softcapping SR is kissing your sister.
|
It's either very difficult or very expensive (and still kind of difficult).
But I think Arcana has overlooked -- or anyway isn't talking about -- at least two solutions other than the one she has proposed. One of them is encapsulated in any discussion of zero-sum economics. The other is encapsulated in the process of answering the question, "Can an anthill be described as sentient?"
Quote:
I created the drama, obviously; a play with one actor and no audience is easily forgotten. I created it because I find Blue_Centurion's initial post reprehensible. I have exactly the responsibility, authority, or incentive to police that as you do my posts.|
Originally Posted by Siolfir
You're the one insisting on dragging it out, though, so who is really creating the drama?
|
However, a play with one actor and no audience is easily forgotten. I am not "the" one drawing it out.
Welcome to drama club. We meet Tuesdays and Fridays at five; please have your lines memorized by next week.
Quote:
I was given the lead! Thanks! Can you make my lines better?
|
Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
I created the drama, obviously; a play with one actor and no audience is easily forgotten. I created it because I find Blue_Centurion's initial post reprehensible. I have exactly the responsibility, authority, or incentive to police that as you do my posts.
However, a play with one actor and no audience is easily forgotten. I am not "the" one drawing it out. Welcome to drama club. We meet Tuesdays and Fridays at five; please have your lines memorized by next week. |
Carl and Sons @Aurora Girl (Pinnacle)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EarthWyrm
But I do understand that there is an internet rule that any bad idea must be presented by someone at least twice a year to remind everyone who hasn't already read every previous thread on the topic precisely why the idea is bad.
|
I skipped the rest of the thread when I saw the words "I don't want KB" (paraphrased)
Well, i'm in the extreme other camp. I, personally, would prefer KB on more powers. Why? Well, to me, nothing screams "POWERFUL" or "HEAVY DAMAGE" or "CRITICAL HIT" more than blasting an opponent from their feet and sending them across the room. But that'll never happen, and all I can do is dream ...
Just my two pennies.
I was doing some playthroughs of City of Heroes. Now they will serve as memories of a better time ...
Quote:
2 things 1) hands off the marraige I have. 2) it seems you are saying my entire post is ironic. I can see where you might think that. You are wrong.
|
Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
And you married an editor. For shame.
what they are actually saying is, |
Quote:
I agre, it is beautiful. Unfortunately....it ruins the kill shed we are trying to build.
|
Originally Posted by TheShattered
I skipped the rest of the thread when I saw the words "I don't want KB" (paraphrased)
Well, i'm in the extreme other camp. I, personally, would prefer KB on more powers. Why? Well, to me, nothing screams "POWERFUL" or "HEAVY DAMAGE" or "CRITICAL HIT" more than blasting an opponent from their feet and sending them across the room. But that'll never happen, and all I can do is dream ... Just my two pennies. |
Quote:
You have stated that you find my post reprehensible. I hear you. I hear why you say that.
|
Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
I created the drama, obviously; a play with one actor and no audience is easily forgotten. I created it because I find Blue_Centurion's initial post reprehensible. I have exactly the responsibility, authority, or incentive to police that as you do my posts.
|
Quote:
Producer. "You're fired."
|
Originally Posted by Aurora_Girl
I was given the lead! Thanks! Can you make my lines better?
|
...so, you *do* get it?
I'm so confused.
Also, nice post count padding. 
Carl and Sons @Aurora Girl (Pinnacle)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EarthWyrm
But I do understand that there is an internet rule that any bad idea must be presented by someone at least twice a year to remind everyone who hasn't already read every previous thread on the topic precisely why the idea is bad.
|
Quote:
I'm with you on that one. I've never seen more instances of, "You're absolutely right -- here's why you're wrong" outside of a client meeting. I feel like I'm being handled by a terrified, yet half-asleep customer service rep.|
Originally Posted by Aurora_Girl
I'm so confused.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aurora_Girl
Also, nice post count padding
|
Quote:
2,409 thx|
Originally Posted by Aurora_Girl
...so, you *do* get it?
I'm so confused. Also, nice post count padding. |
And yes. I do get it. If "IT" is the fact that some people do not like my tone. Er, when I said "some people, it wasn't like 'you people'. I mean not like 'you people' you people. If you know what I mean. nudge nudge wink wink, say no more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blue_Centurion
2,409 thx
And yes. I do get it. If "IT" is the fact that some people do not like my tone. Er, when I said "some people, it wasn't like 'you people'. I mean not like 'you people' you people. If you know what I mean. nudge nudge wink wink, say no more. |
Carl and Sons @Aurora Girl (Pinnacle)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EarthWyrm
But I do understand that there is an internet rule that any bad idea must be presented by someone at least twice a year to remind everyone who hasn't already read every previous thread on the topic precisely why the idea is bad.
|
Quote:
You have terrified me from you're first post. To be honest I may not be caring about Blasters after this thread, and will just run Stone Armor Tanks to protect myself from the bad people.
|
Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
I feel like I'm being handled by a terrified, yet half-asleep customer service rep.
|
Quote:
That's pretty much a nutshell summary of the game I've been requesting for the last four years or so, though I've usually tried to make it a bit more palatable by disguising it as a suggestion for a "gadgeteer" archetype.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
In other words, rather like if City of Heroes had no primary or secondary powersets, it only had a large number of power pools, and every power effect including damage and buffing were encapsulated into invention procs and globals with a cost tied to leveling XP.
|
Yeah, it would probably be a nightmare to manage but I would find it really interesting to play with from a player perspective.
Quote:
Thanks for your posts Arcanaville. I really enjoyed the Hero Systems modifier posts as well. My favorite storyteller can take any system and bend it to her stories, simply because she will either modify a rule or have a deux ex machina at the drop of a hat. She wants people to have fun, and wants to tell a story. But yeah, she is the final arbiter. Ohh, great name for an arachnos agent there!
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
That's what people are generally thinking when it comes to free form systems: the ability to take any amount of any kind of power they want, and modify those powers to have whatever effects they want, with the only real limits being the absolute limits of the ability system and the fixed resources granted to perform those customizations.
In other words, rather like if City of Heroes had no primary or secondary powersets, it only had a large number of power pools, and every power effect including damage and buffing were encapsulated into invention procs and globals with a cost tied to leveling XP. I think anyone who thinks that's impossible doesn't understand the nature of the solution, and anyone who thinks that's easy doesn't understand the nature of the problem. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
In other words, rather like if City of Heroes had no primary or secondary powersets, it only had a large number of power pools, and every power effect including damage and buffing were encapsulated into invention procs and globals with a cost tied to leveling XP.
I think anyone who thinks that's impossible doesn't understand the nature of the solution, and anyone who thinks that's easy doesn't understand the nature of the problem. |
I would put it at one step away from impossible, if not actually impossible, when you start looking at the framework surrounding long-term MMO play.
For example: What is the value of having multiple characters if any character can pick anything and respecs are available (the equivalent of jumping from Empathy Defender to Fire Brute)? Do you just not allow respeccing at all to preserve the system? Can you only respec at huge cost? Do you have to slowly migrate skills over because a full respec would be too powerful? How do players who are new to the game manage their progression if respecs are very limited and they will be stuck with what they pick? If you do allow them to respec, how do you manage the fact that no matter what you do some builds will be better at leveling than others, so players will be pushed into building a fast-leveling character and then switching their build to what they actually want?
This isn't an impossible situation to solve, but it is very, very difficult. One thing I think some people (though not you, I suspect) overlook is that by limiting us to specific powers, CoX prevents the optimal strategy from being directing yourself into an aberrant temporary build, leveling it up, and then using it as your vehicle to access any character you want at any time by respeccing.
Quote:
Except with DFB that is exactly what is the easiest thing to do now. I can level any character to 50, no matter how impossible the build is to level, no matter how little I know about that archetype/power setup, because it is easy easy easy. THen, when the character gets it's uber powers at 38 and you can I/O it to godhood it is ready for the I-trials without me struggling to get it through regular content.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
One thing I think some people (though not you, I suspect) overlook is that by limiting us to specific powers, CoX prevents the optimal strategy from being directing yourself into an aberrant temporary build, leveling it up, and then using it as your vehicle to access any character you want at any time by respeccing.
|
Your point about that being even worse in a respeccable full variable system is well seen. I could build mondo the tank, crush all enemies by standing there with the 3 allowable damage toggles. Then after Mondo has hit max experience turn Mondo into Mondrotron the Mighty Blaster with no armor and 3 nukes that kill at a distance, while I am cloaked, and phase shifted. (Not a good build to level, but fun at a party)
Quote:
lolwut|
Originally Posted by Blue_Centurion
Except with DFB that is exactly what is the easiest thing to do now. I can level any character to 50, no matter how impossible the build is to level, no matter how little I know about that archetype/power setup, because it is easy easy easy. THen, when the character gets it's uber powers at 38 and you can I/O it to godhood it is ready for the I-trials without me struggling to get it through regular content.
Your point about that being even worse in a respeccable full variable system is well seen. I could build mondo the tank, crush all enemies by standing there with the 3 allowable damage toggles. Then after Mondo has hit max experience turn Mondo into Mondrotron the Mighty Blaster with no armor and 3 nukes that kill at a distance, while I am cloaked, and phase shifted. (Not a good build to level, but fun at a party) |
Have you actually *tried* to go 1-50 on nothing but DFBs?
If you have the patience to do that on a "normal" powerset/AT combo, let alone a "gimped" or "aberrant" one (Petless MM comes to mind), professional help for your OCD may be in order.
Carl and Sons @Aurora Girl (Pinnacle)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EarthWyrm
But I do understand that there is an internet rule that any bad idea must be presented by someone at least twice a year to remind everyone who hasn't already read every previous thread on the topic precisely why the idea is bad.
|
I'm using "entitled" the stative verb, which I can't think of a transitive application for (not saying there isn't one, just can't think of one). It's also a fairly recent term, so it isn't in many dictionaries.
I really feel no need to neuter my language because some people can't distinguish between homonyms, tenses, or parts of speech. Nor do I accept the slippery slope argument that tone is irrelevant when "asking for new things." Technically, a demand is a form of request, but it carries an implicit consequence for failure to comply. Entitlement (as I'm using the term) is when a request is formed as a demand (that is, addressed and declarative: "You should," "You must," "You need to," etc) instead of as a query ("Could you," "Would it be possible to," etc) but the consequence of the demand is ridiculous -- and therefore usually unstated. (And of course, the demand is not being made ironically.)
(Oh, and I'm not saying it's "just" a homophone. The etymological path is fairly obvious, from "He was entitled to [X right or privilege]," to "He felt entitled to [X right or privilege]," to "He felt entitled (privilege previously indicated or implicitly universal)," into the concept 'entitled behavior', which then sort of comingled with the explicitly defined verb form. But I really can't accept nominalist arguments made just for the sake of nominalism.)
And I find the discussion of language to be far more salient and fascinating than most of the topic, although I admit Aurora_Girl's posts have made me chuckle.
To be extremely clear, the heart of you're argument seems to be that I am demanding something. I'm not. I believe you call it a "query."