Quote:
Your parenthesis is where this stops being a role, that's what I'm saying. When people ask for a role, what they're really asking is "Why should I invite this character INSTEAD of that character?" and this is a question that City of Heroes very rarely has an answer to. The simple fact of the matter is I haven't seen a team that turned someone down for not bringing the right AT. The usual answer to "What should I bring?" tends to be "Whatever you want."|
Originally Posted by Arilou
In order for a new AT to be worth the dev's precious time, it has to provide something: It has to do something that another AT isn't doing. (or at least do the same thing in a sufficiently different way to be interesting)
|
Now, you can argue semantics about what a "role" is, but the fact of the matter is it simply doesn't come into play in the game as it stands right now. Yes, characters can still serve roles, but in practice anyone brings anything and people simply assume whatever roles seem to be appropriate at the time. And most teams work. The simple truth of the matter is that most any AT can fill most any of your two "roles." To different degrees, to be sure, but unless you're going for "elite" content, most people can fill most roles well enough to keep a team going. That's the crux of it.
As such, I firmly believe that at this stage in the game's development, "doing the same thing as everyone else but in a different way" is role enough. We already have most of the super powers covered. All that's left is to think up new ways to combine them, even if those new combinations aren't necessarily better specialists than the old ones.
I keep bringing up the Power Armour Gatling Gun Guy not because I want a character who's better than Blasters and Tankers, but just because I want a character with a gun who's also designed to not be squishy. What role would that serve on a team? Kill stuff. Ain't that good enough?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
I do want to stress that this is the usual answer. I don't think it terribly undermines your point, but there can be a use for roles in this game. Basically, how important they are depends on how challenging we expect whatever we're doing to be.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Your parenthesis is where this stops being a role, that's what I'm saying. When people ask for a role, what they're really asking is "Why should I invite this character INSTEAD of that character?" and this is a question that City of Heroes very rarely has an answer to. The simple fact of the matter is I haven't seen a team that turned someone down for not bringing the right AT. The usual answer to "What should I bring?" tends to be "Whatever you want."
|
If a bunch of 50+1s with Tier 4 Incarnate powers are going to steamroll a +0 taskforce, roles become pretty meaningless. Everyone's role becomes "win", or even "do whatever meets your fancy", since it's often possible for a team to succeed with just one member doing the needful in such circumstances.
If you've got a bunch of 35-45 characters on SOs and common IOs running the same TF at +2, making sure a few roles are covered becomes much more useful. Someone who can act as meatshield, someone who can provide shields, someone who can debuff AVs, and people who can deal damage would all be roles I would try to fill in such a situation. The roles I would apply are broad, as you can see, and if I could not fill them all, I'd probably not sweat it too much, but if I couldn't fill enough of them, I'd probably change something else, like the difficulty target or at least the expectation of how long the TF will take.
I know you prefer a kind of coast mode of playing CoH, and in that mode, roles don't matter much. Playing in that mode is usually always an option, barring a few missions or TFs (such as Apex/Tin Mage), but not everyone chooses it for a variety of reasons, so they might have more use for roles.
I think your proposed Ranged/Armored AT (your tough guy with a gun) fits in the existing broad roles we already do have, so I don't think the existence or use of roles would be what bars such an AT (or powersets for existing ATs) from being created. I would expect that to be driven by some other design constraints or balance considerations.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
No it isn't: It's just a different way of fulfilling a role. (eg. Fortunata's in this game can fulfill the roles of "defence", "buff", "damage" and "control" to various degrees)| Your parenthesis is where this stops being a role, that's what I'm saying. |
Castle was asking you (at least the way you phrased it) "What would this AT do? What would make it worth implementing?"
Take D&D, for example, there's usually a "utility role" (disarm trap, get locks, etc.) you can get a rogue to do that, or a wizard with the right selection of spells, or even an unconventionally built paladin, but they're all fulfilling the same role: That of the "getting you past obstacles guy"
Quote:
|
As such, I firmly believe that at this stage in the game's development, "doing the same thing as everyone else but in a different way" is role enough. We already have most of the super powers covered. All that's left is to think up new ways to combine them, even if those new combinations aren't necessarily better specialists than the old ones. I keep bringing up the Power Armour Gatling Gun Guy not because I want a character who's better than Blasters and Tankers, but just because I want a character with a gun who's also designed to not be squishy. What role would that serve on a team? Kill stuff. Ain't that good enough? |
EDIT: I should note that even "regular" contend can become unwinnable if you don't have sufficient of the right type of role (usually, but not always, damage) I remember running TF's on teams of eight where the characters were underlevelled/badly built/had an unfortunate combination of sets to the degree where we just couldn't put out enough DPS to overcome the AV's regen.
"Men strunt �r strunt och snus �r snus
om ock i gyllne dosor.
Och rosor i ett sprucket krus
�r st�ndigt alltid rosor."
This I can agree with, actually. You remind me of the countless tales I've heard of people not inviting Stalkers to the RSF back in the day because they weren't seen as doing anything someone else couldn't do better. Within the context of difficult content, I can agree that splitting the duty into roles isn't out of the game even for City of Heroes, just that...
Let me see if I can revise my argument a bit. Let's say that I don't feel a new AT needs to have a UNIQUE role in order to be worth making, i.e. it doesn't need to do anything better than everybody else. You're right that my PAGGG (I need a new acronym...) would probably work either as DPS or as a make-shift tank same as a Scrapper could tank, depending on which side the AT leans to, and the others are probably right that it would never be as good as a dedicated tank or a dedicated damage dealer. But the thing is... We already have a whole bunch of ATs like that.
The thing with City of Heroes ATs is that while they may be seen as having roles, even the old specialist no longer have just the one that's in their name. Most characters can wear many hats and do one of a number of things, so a new AT doesn't really need to have a unique role so much as it ought to be able to fill in for a few of these roles, at least. I'd only ever consider it troublesome if it can fill in for too many at the same time, or otherwise fill in for too few at all. Given that our current powers team isn't afraid to experiment, I'd say we're in no real danger of this happening.
Quote:
|
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 certainly agree with the sentiment that this game's ATs don't map to narrow roles. I think the very original release thought they did (or would), but it didn't pan out like that, partially because everyone was very powerful, partially because most everyone has been made at least halfway decent at dealing damage (a common role), and partially because this game lets us usually get away with "just" being decent at a role instead of massively qualified. I think the design of the CoV ATs was a clear recognition of that - most of them are generalists. (Stalkers were something of an outlier here, possibly because they were given a secondary role/capability that really didn't have much value in PvE.)
I think a lot of CoH's players really like that about it. Its one of the things that lets us take whatever character we're playing and complete most content with it, which lets those of us prone to such interpretations feel more like each character is a super-being in their own right. Not everyone who plays CoH likes a game to fit together this way, but it seems to have attracted (and kept) a decent core of folks who do like it.
I think the OP topic really gets us into the question of how far does this need to be taken? Does liking the ability to have lots of role crossover among ATs mean we should generalize them more? Or is there value in having a kind of role focus for characters of a given class?
I'm of the opinion that focus is good as long as it allows for diversification. I like the idea of having a core thing (or set of things) that a character is good at "out of the box", so that you can be very good at one thing if you want to. But it's also nice if you can choose to be passably good in enough other things that you're not constantly looking for help from other specialists. Making specialists attractive is fine, while making them required can be frustrating.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
Nice post. Getting into the subject of "god like" characters is a bit of a red herring really. |
Originally Posted by Thunder Knight
Really, I think the actual definition of Tank-Mage has gotten lost in this discussion. It's someone who fights as well as a mage but has defenses like a tank. They're problematic because they're as durable as the most durable defensive class and as offensively capable as the most powerful ranged class, which makes everyone else obsolete.
|
When Superman began, he wasn't like this "hard infinity" that by default trumps everything else power-wise, he was just super strong and super tough. Power inflation crept in when DC made Superman collect a grab-bag of powers just because other heroes were being made by other companies that had those powers (e.g. another company made a hero that could fly, so a few issues later suddenly Superman could fly).
Apart from Superman and a few other cosmics, who are just trumping McGuffins, most superheroes just have various combinations of powers. Some are more powerful than others, but there's this little thing in economics called "comparative advantage" - I might be better at everything than everybody else, but it still pays to do the thing I'm best at, and let others do the things I'm not so good at, even if my "not so good" is better than anyone else could do.
So there's room for characters with varying power levels in the comics.
It's just that there's not so much room for varying power levels in a videogame, which has to be balanced.
Really, the problem for a videogame is not whether abilities should go cosmic, but whether and how they should be balanced against each other. There seems to be two options: make every character sort of tank-magey, or at least self-sufficient, or make various classes that interlock.
Over time, MMOs have moved towards the first option, because people no longer have the patience to work with a class that may be painful to solo.
But the first option is viable. I notice some people twitting Champs, but actually that game is fairly well balanced IMHO, given the tremendous complexity of trying to balance a game in which anybody can take more or less any power. It's simply not true that a super powerful character obsoletes other characters - if they're all super powerful and a bit tank-magey, but still short of truly cosmic, then they can't be everywhere at once, and there's still a need for a team of them.
Quote:
The question is still relevant because it forces any hypothetical archetype designer to ask the question: what does this archetype contribute to a team that is unique. Creating archetypes is an enormous undertaking. There's no good justification for expending all that effort unless it generates something that produces a unique solo and teaming experience. And I'm not going to quibble over what constitutes a unique experience, except to say that people who quibble over that probably wouldn't be hired to be game designers. Game development already requires too many meetings and memos, without having to deal with the person that wants to spend several more trying to convince the rest of the team that technically speaking all experiences are unique.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Once upon a team, I PMed an AT suggestion directly to Castle (on request by posters from the suggestion thread) and his reply was, in part, to ask what role this AT would serve on a team. At the time, his question made sense, this was years ago, but now? I really don't think this is relevant any more, because it kind of sort of assumes a system where characters are defined by what they NEED to do but CAN'T, for which role another on the team is needed. To me, the game as I see it now has only one major role - help kill stuff. Because this can be accomplished in so many different ways by so many different combinations of characters, I really don't think we should keep asking what this character's role is.
|
Character roles are whatever the player decides they are (they could end up good or bad at it) or whatever their team mates request of them. But archetypes are designed with tools, and those tools dictate the archetype's strengths and weaknesses. And I'm pretty sure when Castle asked what the role of your archetype was, he wasn't asking what every player that played it should do, but rather what your intent was in giving that archetype the tools you gave it, within the context of teams. Even if you think everyone's role is "kill stuff" today, the answer to that question would be dramatically different for defenders and scrappers, say. That difference in answer is what makes defenders and scrappers provide a unique contribution to the game.
Put it another way. When you propose an archetype, you give it a bunch of powers. On what basis do I judge whether you gave it the right powers? On what basis can I suggest alternatives to your design elements? I have to know what they were intended to do first. The question Castle asked you is (a component of) the first question the developers all ask each other. What is this intended to do? And that question will always be relevant.
[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:
Psychic Might Mastery for Tankers and Brutes, Psionic Might Mastery for Stalkers and Scrappers, Mental Mastery for Blasters, please.
|
Originally Posted by ryu_planeswalker
...also Psi Themed APP for tankers please?
|
The 1st Message Board Warrior. m/
Quote:
I do not think your conclusion is the correct one from your premise.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The question is still relevant because it forces any hypothetical archetype designer to ask the question: what does this archetype contribute to a team that is unique. Creating archetypes is an enormous undertaking. There's no good justification for expending all that effort unless it generates something that produces a unique solo and teaming experience.
|
I absolutely agree that:
"There's no good justification for expending all that effort unless it generates something that produces a unique solo and teaming experience."
But the unique experience is for the player playing the character, not for the rest of the team. I do enjoy playing and having different teams play differently - but there are only a few roles that do that: aggro control, lockdown, healing/protecting, and massive damage (powersets make a bigger difference with buffs). I cannot tell the difference between playing with a brute, stalker, scrapper or blaster - they just contribute damage. But for the player of that character there can be a massive difference.
a ranged damage/defense character may play in a team like a scrapper or a blaster to the rest of the players - but it is worth having that AT if people like playing it instead of a scrapper or a blaster.
I don't know why, but even though I've already read this thread, seeing the title again made me imagine the CoT joining together with the Freakshow with Arch Mage freak Tanks.
Click here to find all the All Things Art Threads!
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
But that's my point. Everyone can claim some form of unique experience within different circumstances, but that's not what developers usually are referring to. Its not what anyone should be referring to in this context, because being a truism there's no interesting point to discuss. What's usually meant by "unique contribution" is the design side of that statement; what unique set of tools, intended to function in a particular way, does the powerset, or archetype, or whatever, contribute.|
Originally Posted by dugfromthearth
I do not think your conclusion is the correct one from your premise.
I absolutely agree that: "There's no good justification for expending all that effort unless it generates something that produces a unique solo and teaming experience." But the unique experience is for the player playing the character, not for the rest of the team. I do enjoy playing and having different teams play differently - but there are only a few roles that do that: aggro control, lockdown, healing/protecting, and massive damage (powersets make a bigger difference with buffs). I cannot tell the difference between playing with a brute, stalker, scrapper or blaster - they just contribute damage. But for the player of that character there can be a massive difference. a ranged damage/defense character may play in a team like a scrapper or a blaster to the rest of the players - but it is worth having that AT if people like playing it instead of a scrapper or a blaster. |
Its all fine and good to say everyone can satisfy every role in a team. Fantastic. But designs have targets, and our archetypes do not have as their target "everyone does everything equally well." An archetype designer has to be able to answer that question: "what does this archetype contribute to a team (that is unique)?" How the players decide to use those tools is up to them, but game designers can't design archetypes like the Metrons design planets and just pray that players know how to make bamboo cannons.
[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:
Just to be clear: I'm not blaming Castle or saying he was wrong. That said...|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Put it another way. When you propose an archetype, you give it a bunch of powers. On what basis do I judge whether you gave it the right powers? On what basis can I suggest alternatives to your design elements? I have to know what they were intended to do first. The question Castle asked you is (a component of) the first question the developers all ask each other. What is this intended to do? And that question will always be relevant.
|
What I suggested was an AT designed around not what role it was supposed to fill, so much as how it was intended to be played. As I was suggesting an AT with a mix of melee and ranged attacks, I had to come up with a way to encourage players to NOT just fire their ranged attacks point-blank, which is where my idea for debuffing ranged attack damage for using melee ones and vice versa came about as a means of getting players to switch between range and melee.
I don't know what role this AT would fill on a team, because what this AT is intended to do is be able to use a combination of melee and ranged powers in such a way that neither feels like you need to compromise the "best" playstyle to use. Blasters will usually avoid using their melee attacks more often than not and Scrappers will just shoot their ranged attacks in melee anyway. What team function the AT serves is, to me, secondary to how such an AT would even work at all, because my reason for suggesting any AT isn't because I feel a new role on a team can be fulfilled, but rather because I feel powersets can be combined in ways they haven't already.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
But that's my point. Everyone can claim some form of unique experience within different circumstances, but that's not what developers usually are referring to. Its not what anyone should be referring to in this context, because being a truism there's no interesting point to discuss. What's usually meant by "unique contribution" is the design side of that statement; what unique set of tools, intended to function in a particular way, does the powerset, or archetype, or whatever, contribute.
|
Look at Masterminds, for instance. Yes, they have roles... None of which they're the best at, but why people play them isn't because they can tank or support or deal damage. In fact, ask around and to this day you'll get people argue over whether Masterminds can tank or not. But what makes the experience unique is that this AT plays like no other in the game BY FAR. I don't know what role they fit on a team, nor do I feel it's terribly important to the question of whether they bring something to the game that's worth keeping. Yes, they do, because the way they work is different from all other ATs. That's "unique" enough.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
There's an actual mission where the Freaks decide to try out this "magic" thing. At least one of my characters couldn't decide whether this was better or worse, in terms of potential collateral damage, than them playing with fissionables.
|
Originally Posted by AzureSkyCiel
I don't know why, but even though I've already read this thread, seeing the title again made me imagine the CoT joining together with the Freakshow with Arch Mage freak Tanks.
|
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City
Quote:
Personally, I think both role and playstyle should be considered, but there should be enough inbuilt flexibility to allow variation.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Just to be clear: I'm not blaming Castle or saying he was wrong. That said...
What I suggested was an AT designed around not what role it was supposed to fill, so much as how it was intended to be played. As I was suggesting an AT with a mix of melee and ranged attacks, I had to come up with a way to encourage players to NOT just fire their ranged attacks point-blank, which is where my idea for debuffing ranged attack damage for using melee ones and vice versa came about as a means of getting players to switch between range and melee. I don't know what role this AT would fill on a team, because what this AT is intended to do is be able to use a combination of melee and ranged powers in such a way that neither feels like you need to compromise the "best" playstyle to use. Blasters will usually avoid using their melee attacks more often than not and Scrappers will just shoot their ranged attacks in melee anyway. What team function the AT serves is, to me, secondary to how such an AT would even work at all, because my reason for suggesting any AT isn't because I feel a new role on a team can be fulfilled, but rather because I feel powersets can be combined in ways they haven't already. Also, there's this. I don't disagree with you, but I still feel that combining powerset categories that no AT shares right now is "unique" enough in terms of experiences, provided it actually works. I know I tend to downplay how the game "plays" in favour of concept, but I'm one of the people who believe Brutes and Scrappers don't play very similarly in actual practice, and I feel that a Ranged/Defence AT would play drastically differently from all other ATs in the game so far. Look at Masterminds, for instance. Yes, they have roles... None of which they're the best at, but why people play them isn't because they can tank or support or deal damage. In fact, ask around and to this day you'll get people argue over whether Masterminds can tank or not. But what makes the experience unique is that this AT plays like no other in the game BY FAR. I don't know what role they fit on a team, nor do I feel it's terribly important to the question of whether they bring something to the game that's worth keeping. Yes, they do, because the way they work is different from all other ATs. That's "unique" enough. |
I quite like my "Retaliator" AT idea:
Primary role: Tank, Secondary role: ranged damage
Primary powerset: Defence
Secondary powerset: Assault
HP: Between Brute and Tanker, def/res values: as tank, but res capped at 85%. Ranged and melee damage mods: 0.75/0.75.
Inherent: Retaliation. As the Retaliator is attacked, their "retaliation bar" fills. When it is full, they can activate the "Retaliation button". This causes attacks to do double damage (scrapper critical style) and gives a +25% to-hit bonus for 20 seconds.
Inherent part 2: Assault-voke. All attacks proc a 5' radius taunt. Unlike punch-voke, this is coded in the same way as Interface, rather than hard-coded into attacks. When Retaliation is active, Assault-voke is turned off.
I really should do something about this signature.
Quote:
I'd play it.
|
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Personally, I think both role and playstyle should be considered, but there should be enough inbuilt flexibility to allow variation.
I quite like my "Retaliator" AT idea: Primary role: Tank, Secondary role: ranged damage Primary powerset: Defence Secondary powerset: Assault HP: Between Brute and Tanker, def/res values: as tank, but res capped at 85%. Ranged and melee damage mods: 0.75/0.75. Inherent: Retaliation. As the Retaliator is attacked, their "retaliation bar" fills. When it is full, they can activate the "Retaliation button". This causes attacks to do double damage (scrapper critical style) and gives a +25% to-hit bonus for 20 seconds. Inherent part 2: Assault-voke. All attacks proc a 5' radius taunt. Unlike punch-voke, this is coded in the same way as Interface, rather than hard-coded into attacks. When Retaliation is active, Assault-voke is turned off. |
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
I'd probably put the values a bit lower. (no AT with defences of a tank should ever outdamage a a blaster, even temporarily) But the general idea seems sound.
|
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Personally, I think both role and playstyle should be considered, but there should be enough inbuilt flexibility to allow variation.
I quite like my "Retaliator" AT idea: Primary role: Tank, Secondary role: ranged damage Primary powerset: Defence Secondary powerset: Assault HP: Between Brute and Tanker, def/res values: as tank, but res capped at 85%. Ranged and melee damage mods: 0.75/0.75. Inherent: Retaliation. As the Retaliator is attacked, their "retaliation bar" fills. When it is full, they can activate the "Retaliation button". This causes attacks to do double damage (scrapper critical style) and gives a +25% to-hit bonus for 20 seconds. Inherent part 2: Assault-voke. All attacks proc a 5' radius taunt. Unlike punch-voke, this is coded in the same way as Interface, rather than hard-coded into attacks. When Retaliation is active, Assault-voke is turned off. |
"Men strunt �r strunt och snus �r snus
om ock i gyllne dosor.
Och rosor i ett sprucket krus
�r st�ndigt alltid rosor."
Quote:
Numbers would obviously need tuning. To have Retaliation available reasonably frequently (I would say 3 mins, immune to +/-recharge) making the bonus damage +50% (crit damage, not +DMG) might be more appropriate. That would put Retaliation just ahead of SoA but behind Scrappers and Blasters.|
Originally Posted by Arilou
I'd probably put the values a bit lower. (no AT with defences of a tank should ever outdamage a a blaster, even temporarily) But the general idea seems sound.
|
I wouldn't want to go lower on base damage - that wouldn't be fun.
I really should do something about this signature.
There are lots of ways to achieve either of these things in this game, but ultimately, that's what it comes down to. (exception: Stealthing missions)
So yes, everyone needs to fill one of those roles: That or said person is literally not contributing. (except perhaps by his or her stunning social skills and witty banter, a sadly unrewarded MMO ability) Now, the system in COH is fairly flexible: There's a lot of ways to provide mitigation (controls, defensive sets, buffs, tanking...) and also ways to increase damage. But the point is, in order for a new AT to be worth the dev's precious time. (they probably have tons of things planned they'll never get out... I'm sure they'll tell us if they run out of ideas) it has to provide something: It has to do something that another AT isn't doing. (or at least do the same thing in a sufficiently different way to be interesting)
And yes, "jack of all trades, master of none" is a role in itself. (though rather hard to balance, it tends to become either "Master of All" or "Master of None", although I must say the VEAT's work pretty well)
"Men strunt �r strunt och snus �r snus
om ock i gyllne dosor.
Och rosor i ett sprucket krus
�r st�ndigt alltid rosor."