BellaStrega

[ QUOTE ]
The Tuatha de Dannan and the Fir Bolg? Weren't they ancient Irish clans? Why are they monsters?


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to appeal to realism over mythology?

Those are the only powersets coming in issue 5.

[ QUOTE ]
It's also possible to go a completly Machen route with it, where the fae folk of old legend were driven into hiding and, bereft of sunlight and the other good things of the surface world, degenerated into things of unspeakable awfulness. Or, depending on the story, were always things of awfulness that mankind intentionally forgot by masking them with tales of glory.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a completely valid direction to take things. I've seen it done before to good effect.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nah, no wories. I'm noth that easy to set off and I suck at holding grudges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Goddamnit. We're going to agree now, aren't we?

That never works on the intarweb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since this has been nothing but one continuous hijack anyway...

When did you grow a new forum title?

[/ QUOTE ]

At 11k posts, although I could've done it as soon as 10k.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of authentic interpretations...

I'm wondering if it's just the Irish who are meant to be inviolate?

[/ QUOTE ]



you win... that is by far more offensive... and I'm not being sarcastic about that. Okay, I'll concede that perhaps I'm being thin skined. I just never got over my outrage at the "Mystic Knights of Tyr Nan Nog" show that turned Irish myth into Power Rangers and it's ranckled me ever since.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know your pain, although I find the show far more regrettable for simply being bad entertainment.

[ QUOTE ]

Nah, no wories. I'm noth that easy to set off and I suck at holding grudges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Goddamnit. We're going to agree now, aren't we?

That never works on the intarweb.

Speaking of authentic interpretations...

I'm wondering if it's just the Irish who are meant to be inviolate?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
on another topic but still in this general topic of I5... saw this on another board and I couldn't agree more.

I'm a bit miffed from a cultural perspective. The Tuatha deDannan were the Faerie Folk of Ireland, not big shaggy monsters. It gets a bit tiresome seeing the religious beliefs of my ancestors ground up and spit out in a totally outrageous form. No one depicts the Roman Gods or Norse Gods or even Egyptian Gods as shaggy monsters, but hey, who cares about the Irish!? We can do whatever we want to their Gods, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone never played Yu-Gi-Oh, I see. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Frostybot makes my point with 1/100th the verbiage for teh win!

Damn him!

Personally, I don't mind that old stories are adapted for modern use. They're not changing the old stories, they're writing new ones.

[ QUOTE ]
hmm... well... I guess that perhaps some of us of Irish decent are tired of seeing what our ancestors held precious presented in a manner that is degrading to our heritage. If you don't find it degrading to have the mythology of our people completely trashed then I guess you don't know much about it and apparently don't care. What's the big deal? It's a form of predjudice, THAT's the big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so it's okay for fantasy and superhero RPGs and comic books to take apart every single mythology in the world and repackage it so people can hit things until the XP falls out, but when it's something applied to your mythology, it becomes uncool? If this were quantifiably worse than anything that's ever been done to any culture's ancient world mythos, I'd agree. However... we don't even know enough about what they're doing with the Tuatha de Danann to have an informed response.

[ QUOTE ]

You apparently have a much more narrow definition of drama than I. You took exception with how I worded something and made a passive-agressive statement marking clear displeasure. In the middle of an otherwise intelligent exchange of ideas I take that as a highly emotional and extremely unproductive diversion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Er, that wasn't passive-aggressive. And, yes, I have a narrower definition of drama. I don't consider polite requests to be very dramatic, or very passive-aggressive. I admit the request may be disagreeable, but that's something of another matter.

[ QUOTE ]
With all due respect, as someone who is as active here as you are I would think you would have a much stronger filter for the specific wording someone uses in forum posts.

No condescention was intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. How something reads is not always how it is intended, and I'm not really able to take responsibility for every single turn of phrase that somehow hits me the wrong way. I'm not trying to make anything into a declaration of all-out war, either.

[ QUOTE ]
on another topic but still in this general topic of I5... saw this on another board and I couldn't agree more.

I'm a bit miffed from a cultural perspective. The Tuatha deDannan were the Faerie Folk of Ireland, not big shaggy monsters. It gets a bit tiresome seeing the religious beliefs of my ancestors ground up and spit out in a totally outrageous form. No one depicts the Roman Gods or Norse Gods or even Egyptian Gods as shaggy monsters, but hey, who cares about the Irish!? We can do whatever we want to their Gods, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking as someone of Irish ancestry, I couldn't agree less. I mean, what's the big deal?

[ QUOTE ]
This has not been my experience on the Cape mission or the Respec trial. Every time I've been on a team that's failed one of those, it's because we got wiped at the glowie or reactor (or 90% wiped and the one guy who got away doesn't have time to rez everyone). That seems to me to be a reasonable standard--if you go down while protecting the thing, you lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I wasn't talking about the reactor trial or the cape mission. I was talking about the Council mission where you have to save the artwork from destruction. It's really a defeat all, though, and losing the items doesn't boot you from the mission. This is good, because the Council will kill things faster than you can really react.

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't run into many of the other protect missions yet, although I do remember one where the glowies did have the problem you're describing, in that it was nearly impossible to keep them from blowing up. (Strangely, this didn't cause the mission to fail; not sure if it was bugged or what.) I guess I'm just pointing out that if the reactor and the cape mission are okay, then the problem is that the other protect missions aren't balance properly, not that protect missions are just a broken concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm just pointing out I wasn't talking about the cape or reactor mission.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would simply be nice to have more distinctiveness for both. Please refrain from telling me what I want, but you are certainly free to suggest what might be a better idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christ, get over yourself. If you can't get past a figure of speech like that let me know now so I can add you to my ignore list. I don't have any use for drama-ridden BS responses like that when I'm having an otherwise civil conversation with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't even close to drama. I'm sorry, but saying "What you really want is..." feels condescending to me. So, I commented on it.

[ QUOTE ]
meh. more content for the levels that already have way too much content to experience. so instead of going to striga we'll go to croakatoada or whatever. Things that would have excited me: post-50 content and/or the ability to flashback to missed content (which i guess is largely post-50 content) with outleveled contacts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the ability to implement flashback is now in the game. It just needs to be implemented. The exemplar for TFs would do it handily. It may mean being literally unable to outlevel story arcs, though, as you'll probably exemp to your contact when you take their missions.

I would be unsurprised if it got into I5 or soon after, if it's going in at all.

[ QUOTE ]
I saved all but one of those when I did that mssion. Granted I was using Full Auto. But I've never realy noticed the destructables being destoried to quickly except when it was appearantly bugged. Upon entering a mission where Lost were destorying a part of the teleportation grid I failed. They had appearantly decided not to wait for me to aggro them. But that was back in I2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Solo, I3 and I4, I've had things get destroyed within moments of starting the fight. I've seen Warwolves practically one-shot the displays. In an eight-person team, forget about saving anything. When doing these missions, either the thing gets saved, or there was never a chance to save it because it happens too fast.

[ QUOTE ]
Well I hate to burst your bublle, but there is a timed Outcast mission where you have to save artifacts and hostages. And the artifacts are destructible.

I only manage to complete it successfully about half the time I do it because an artifact ends up getting popped.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am so sick of these missions. It might be the "rescue museum pieces from the Council" where the pieces are destroyed within a few seconds of aggroing the Council every single time. It's no fun if you have no chance to actually save them.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if its been mentioned (too many posts for me to look at) but if anyone has read Harry Potter or played WoW it mentions Red Caps little fairy imp type creatures (which are from Harry Potter) and Fir Bolgs which is in WoW. Did they steal some ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, from the same sources Harry Potter and WoW stole from.

Also, Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you want is for Defenders to be meaningfully better at using their primaries than a Controller.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. That's exactly it. It's not the powersets, it's the degree of efficiency with which each AT uses them.

Who knows, maybe Defs will get better buff/debuff numbers than controllers with Trick Arrow, in much the same way that electric blast Defs get better End Drain results than electric blasters in the Arena.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, yeah, clarifying: I don't disagree with Uberguy's statement - Defenders do need to be meaningfully more powerful with their primaries. I just didn't like the, "what you want is..." bit.

[ QUOTE ]

I've got to say that having powersets that are unique isn't a good enough reason to have a team want a Defender instead of a Controller. If they did, that implies to me that even on Defenders that power set is superior to the other sets, meaning only Defenders with the new set would get the love. I'm not sure you want to "fix" the perceived high-level game by adding in "golden child" Defender sets.

What you want is for Defenders to be meaningfully better at using their primaries than a Controller. You never see people asking for a Defender or a Tanker to increase the damage output of the team. Likewise they really shouldn't be asking for a Controller to increase the defense/buffs/debuffs of the team.

[/ QUOTE ]

The above explanation that you quoted is about why people thought these two powersets were defender-only.

What I want is for defenders and controllers to have access to powersets the other does not have. I do not think that defenders are all that unnecessary in the later game, or that people really take controllers over defenders quite to the degree that people talk about. It would simply be nice to have more distinctiveness for both. Please refrain from telling me what I want, but you are certainly free to suggest what might be a better idea.

I do think that defender buff/debuff sets should be about 33% more powerful for defenders than for controllers, but I also think defenders could use a bit of a damage buff - or at least a reexamination of the damage output on their secondaries.

[ QUOTE ]
The trick is doing that without making Controller secondaries very gimpy indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it doesn't strike me as a hard trick. There should never be a case where a defender and a controller use exactly the same power, and the controller gets equal effect. Making it 80% of defender effectiveness strikes me as too high, as some controllers have more effective damage-dealing options later in the game, and defenders end up with insufficient advantage over controllers, and a lack in terms of ranged damage.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm just saying, seeing this type of content... only a year into the game, COH should still be introducing fresh and new ideas for itself and not content that makes me wonder if I wandered into Everquest by accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of complaint makes no sense - since Everquest is fantasy, any fantastic elements must necessarily be derived from it? There are more sources of inspiration for this stuf than Everquest. Take Irish mythology, from whence these creatures are derived. You might as well complain that CoH is ripping off Xena because Statesman is an incarnate of Zeus.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little disappointed in the concept for Croatoa, especially with the new zone and villians. One of the reasons why I like COH so much is the whole "superhero" concept. I feel they are still so far from exhausting ideas within it, that there is no reason we should see something coming even close to Everquest or WOW style concepts. If anything... it worries the hell out of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what the problem is. Have you ever read The Mighty Thor? I mean, he goes to his home in Asgard on occasion, which is prettysword and sorcery-style fantasy at times. Being as it's based on mythological Asgard from the Norse stories, this should hardly be surprising.

Heck, it has giants, evil witches, and elves.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really could care less that defenders are shaing their powersets with blasters and controllers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is gonna be a bit nitpicky, but why is it assumed that Archey and Sonic blast sets were originally meant for Defenders? Ranged blasts are a Blaster primary, so whose to say that Blasters aren't sharing them with Defenders and not the other way around?

Told ya it would be nitpicky didn't I?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Statesman has indicated he's aware that defenders don't feel needed in the late game, and he indicated that the Sonic Debuff and Trick Arrow sets were going to defenders.

People have wanted for a long time (since launch, I would say) to have more defender-only primaries and controller-only secondaries. I don't think it's ever been a loud issue, but it seems to be a constant issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Chron I goofed there. But having fearsome stare to prevent the mezzing is more than any force fielder can get. I'd trade the 6 other powers besides the big 3 for just fearsome stare. Let alone fluffies, stackable resistance debuffs, pets, accuracy/damage debuffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fearsome Stare doesn't do that at all, at least not for me. The best way I've found to get mezzed is to use Fearsome Stare or Darkest Night before someone else comes in. Controllers far more effectively prevent mezzing in this way.

[ QUOTE ]
It's ridiculous the amount that force fielders can't do. But because we provide YOU with enough defense to do well everything is just fine in our powerset.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you're arguing that Dark and Rad are overpowered in comparison, you're implying that everything is fine for FF. Personally, I think FF needs some work to make it team friendlier. Like the other defense-based sets, it's too one-dimensional.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which two defender primaries are better than all the rest, and which two ATs are better than all the rest? Just curious; I honestly can't imagine what those two might be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rad and Dark. Dark can do everything except boost your endurance and comes with pets, rad can do everything except free you from mez(though it does halve your mez duration).

[/ QUOTE ]

Dark can't free you from mez.

This is a huge weakness for both sets.

Rad and Dark, being primarily debuff-oriented, are also heavily dependent upon relative level to be effective. FF and Empathy defenders can follow characters 20 levels higher and still give full-powered buffs (assuming all else being equal). A Dark or Rad needs to be as close to the villains' level as possible for maximum effectiveness.

I know it's in vogue to describe rad and dark as having absolutely no weaknesses or minimizing them as thoroughly as possible, but come on.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The code for "Defense" against Toxic does not exit *yet*. Positron or Geko told us this alreayd.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's good news, and makes more sense. The absence of toxic defense just doesn't follow thematically. Not for a force field.

[/ QUOTE ]

The absence of a toxic damage type at launch is borderline inexcusable, but I imagine other things took precedence.

What surprises me is the lack of ability to add new damage types to the game without monkeywrenching the code.