Blue_Mourning

Did you *read* either one of those two clone arcs? Both Protean and Ajax are mentioned because whoever is our mysterious benefactor is recruiting, and he/she recruits both Ajax and Protean. Which, you know, was the point of the arc. No your clone (which, you know, isn't your clone at all) dies, so you won't be seeing your good double again. And in the villain arc they leave it open. Just because they haven't used it *yet* doesn't mean they won't at all.

On the ITF and the whole time travel issue - they seem to be doing what's usually done with time travel - waving off the more difficult implications because they're extremely difficult to tell well. Why do we want to go back to Cim? Well, we like fighting guys in Togas and swords. I'm okay with that. I'm okay with fighting the 5th column, who by the way ARE trying to change the time stream. So we're actually there to *stop* the time stream from changing in a huge way.

I'm, frankly, not entirely clear on what you want out of the writing. This isn't shakespeare where we're trying to engage in what it means to be human, or whatever. This is super powered people punching each other in the face as hard as they can while spouting things like "Might does not equal right!". While punching each other in the face. This isn't high story telling and it doesn't have to be. The only thing we're trying to do in Apex and Tin Mage is stop an invasion. When you get right down to it, LGTF, STF, Kahn, Barracuda, Positron, Synapse, Sister P and really all of them are pretty much "Stop badguys from doing bad things) with the first four I mentioned explicitly being invasions that we have to stop.
I know you have issues with Kahn and Barracuda, but do you with the others? And, yeah, I've read the earlier story arcs. I wasn't impressed with them. They might have been interesting and innovative when it first began, but the storylines are poor at best. There's pretty much nothing going on through most of them, and yes, when it comes to stories, presentation is important.

Just because you don't like the current stories does not make them badly written. There are always two things that I will say about a movie or a book - I liked/did not like the book, and I thought the book had bad/good writing. You might very well like the old storylines, but they're not good writing. The new stuff, even if some of it have plot holes, are much better and more solid from a pure writing stand point. I also happen to like them. You don't. They're not mutually exclusive. I love the Scorpion King, but as a movie it's a steaming pile of trash (which, you know, is probably why I love it :P)

Form equals function. You can't divorce design from the writing because the writing is more than just writing stuff down on a page, just like reading is more than just reading something off of one (you acutally have to understand and engage with the content, something I've been trying to get my students to learn). For instance - I still have absolutely no idea why you think Apex is badly written. It tells a concise story and it is well presented and makes sense. What's wrong with it? Seriously? Tin Mage is similar - okay a lot of people don't like Malta's presence, but when I ask people what they don't like about Tin Mage they're like "I don't like Malta being there". Malta is only there for one small part of one mission. There are 2 other full missions in the TF. Why are they badly written?

Not to mention there's nothing inherently wrong with "These guys have an evil plan, go stop it" as long as that evil plan makes sense to want to stop and isn't "giant carebears attack Paragon City!!! Again!!!!" I've never had a problem with any part of the story of ITF. As to the whole robot issue: That's precisely the kind of thing that we are going to have to accept that we're not the storyteller. If you're not a being that can be cloned then don't do the frickin' arc. But by saying that that's not a valid storyline means that you're hamstringing the devs in their ability to put forth a storyline about cloning the main character - an arc by the way that puts your character squarely in the center of the action in a way that simply hadn't been done before. In other arcs the heroes are incidental to the storyline. Here they're completely entrenched within it.

But for a long long long long time that was the only way you could get SO's at that level. Actually, scratch that, because I signed up in I9 and didn't have someone who could get into the RWZ until 3 or 4 weeks after issue 10 hit, so I might be totally wrong on that. But I'm guessing that there wasn't a vendor that wasn't mission locked. I could be totally wrong.

Not everyone can agree on what good writing is. For instance, I've seen you many times say that the writing has really taken a hit in this game, yet the new Posi makes a whole lot more sense than the old posi, the FSBA arc is pretty cool, Ray Cooling's arc is a great vehicle to have form equal function, I enjoyed Apex and Tin Mage and thought that the quality of the writing on these far far surpasses a lot of the writing when you look at the older content - especially the content of the original Task Forces. They do a much better job explaining what is going on to the whole team instead of just the team leader. Yet this is the self same content that you seem to hate. Seriously, you can tell me with a straight face that the original Posi was better written than the current one? We just had Sister P as the WST which was juxtaposed to the LGTF. Which of those was better written? And better than that - the Apex and the Tin Mage are far more transparent in terms of story telling than even the LGTF is, mostly because some of the new Tech they're using.

I don't like all of it - the origin of power stuff isn't nonsense and tying it into the well is necessarily vague - but here's the thing: all that stuff is necessarily vague because they're trying not to impinge too much on a person's character concept - something that you're saying they're doing anyway! There are a lot of things you give up to play a cooperative game in terms of personal storytelling.

The new content does a lot of stuff very well, not the least of which is a greater attention to concise and targeted storytelling instead of simply throwing a lot of filler at us. The old stuff felt more like filler. The newer stuff - starting with the arcs we find redside - feel far less like filler and far more like we're accomplishing something each mission.

I don't agree with making the Lore pets Praetorian, but only because I think that needlessly limits our own effect on our incarnate power. It's not "inherently bad writing" because you don't like it. We even disagree on whether or not Marcus Cole is a Mary Sue. I don't think he's a particularly interesting villain but that has more to do with the fact that they've taken away some of the moral gray areas at the high levels. But if we can't even agree on why we don't like someone as a villain, how can the devs ever hope to satisfy everyone with anything other than vague amorphous storytelling, which won't please anyone.

No, but it does mean that you're willing to ignore that stuff for your own, playable reasons. You can ignore that you become a member of Vanguard to get the Vanguard Merits? Do you ignore that the Vanguard HVAS is a Vanguard HVAS instead of a robot you create? There's a certain point at which the complaints become ridiculous in a meta-game way. I understand not liking the Lore Pets, but when you look at what they actually are, it makes sense. Yes, it's making your avatar more powerful, but you're pulling a memory out of the well - whatever that means.

These things aren't meant to supercede your character. They explicitly don't rewrite anything, and even more than that, they don't rewrite anything in a less intensive way than they already have with something as key to your character's development for enhancements - and by the way - they do make you go through an arc to buy SO enhacements over lvl 30 blueside (save for in the RWZ, and Cim).

We are not the storytellers of this game. We are the players. The story tellers are the developers, and we're playing in their sandbox. You can choose to ignore stuff, but once you do so once you can't come back and complain later that "I can't ignore that!" You've already ignored stuff that affects your character in a much more intricate and entrenched way than simply gaining more clickies.

Given all that you've said though, how do you justify enhancing your powers at all? If you're a natural hero you get to slot SO's that have names like "Military Speed", to say nothing of the names of some of the Invention Origin Enhacements. Do you refuse to slot something called "Mako's Bite" because you never trained with Mako? Or Scirocco's Dervish? Given your complaint - and I don't completely disagree with it - you would be hamstrung already in this game.

This is at least a little bit like asking "Why do you need a gun to fire off a full auto?". Why? Because it matches the lore of the powerset and the game. Not to mention that the judgement and destiny slots are colorable, which means they're at least a little bit customizable. I agree to some extent about the lore pet, but if the concept is, you reach down into the well's memory and grab a reflection, then it kind of makes sense that you would grab a praetorian reflection right now. It's not like they don't have the option for giving more reflections later on (not that I'm saying they will, just that the option is there). I *would* like the option to fire Judgement attacks out of a weapon - which was be very cool - but I get why not.

Not to mention that none of these things overwrite any powers you already have. It's not like you're going to never use Inferno again because you have Pyronic Judgement. It means you'll use pyronic Judgement on one spawn, Inferno the next and then LRM the third.

Okay, see I think you're taking this to the illogical extreme. There's nothing in that says your character isn't any of those things. The only thing that's the case is that the well allows these things to be capable of happening. There are many paths to be able to "dodge a rikti sword" and your character provides the flavor text for it. But the very fact that it is possible in that world to be able to build a dimensional grounding ray is provided by the well, not the actual path to get there, nor the end goal once you do have it.

It should also be pointed out that it is extremely hard to justify the existence of a Super that existed before the start of this game anyway since you start at level 1. And I say this while I have 2 characters that were worshipped as Gods in the dark ages. The very fact that you start out not-very-powerful means that you're ignoring a bunch of in-game text anyway. I'm not trying to justify the Origin of Power storyline as good writing - because I don't particularly love it - but I don't think it's good for entirely different reasons than you seem to. The Origin of Power storyline feels clunky because it felt like they were trying to justify the Well affecting everyone equally regardless of origin, not that they were trying to overwrite your origin, but that they were trying to work on concert with all possible ones. Each origin also (if I recall) includes loopholes to be pretty much include most character concepts. I would argue that it doesn't do this well, but I think the intent is quite clear even if the execution doesn't quite make it.

Hence my saying "It's extremely hard to GM a villains game in an MMO".

To be fair, only his villains are over the top. Imperious is kind of a push over too, just as much as Statesman is. It's Reichsman (who they explain why he's gotten so powerful) and Emperor Cole/Tyrant (who they explain why he's gotten so powerful) who are the over powered ones. Both of them have either been referenced in the game, or have been in the game before. Not to mention that they're not making States the uber powerful hero on par with players - they're explicitly keeping him out of the limelight.

To be fair, in an environment like an MMO it's a lot hardre to GM a story like that than it is around a tabletop environment without giving some hint at motivations. If you happen to play a villain that specifically wants to get drunk on power and destroy all he/she can (because they're a nihilistic anarchist or whatever) it would be patently impossible for that character to participate in the storyline because their motivations are incompatible with the world continuing to exist.

Except the bulk of your damage/survivability is going to come more from your own powers rather than a high damage click on a 90 second timer. Does the bulk of your damage in AR come from fast recharging cones and TAoE's, or from that 1 full auto? At least some of this is perception and not rooted in actual performance. It's like loving Inferno on a fire blaster (and I do love me some inferno....); yeah, it's a big boom that wipes out a spawn, but when you factor in the recharge time and down time, spamming fireball and firebreath do more for your damage numbers than Inferno every two spawns does.

To be fair, that's only because he's the villain of the moment. When the Rikti were invading for an issue all the new systems and rewards were about them, it just wasn't "endgame" content. This is just a longer storyline than we're used to.

Having read EG's posts I don't think he was ever against a reasonable solo option. Actually, from what I've read, almost no one is against a reasonable solo option.

Except you didn't say much. What you said was:

So I think the question becomes: "How do you define planning"?

Warning: Is about to engage in hyperbole

So what you want is to be able to walk into a mish, press the 'r' button to run forward with an macro on auto that lets you target next enemy and cue up an attack?

/hyperbole

In all seriousness you absolutely learn new strategies in this game, and tailor your play style around beating up on new enemies. Otherwise you would have a far more difficult time. You focus on the sapper if you're fighting Malta. You beat down the Ring Mistresses and MI's if you're fighting Carnies. Observers if you're fighting Rularru. Medics if you're fighting Cimerorans, Gaurdians and Comm officers if you're fighting Rikti. All of that is tailoring play style to enemy, so it's not likely that you don't do it. And if you don't then you deserve to have a more difficult time than people who do.

The biggest problem with all of this is this: on the Apex runs I've been on, it actually matters more than someone have the Incarnate slot than any IO'd build. On a team IO's matter, but team work matters ten times more.

I would like to point out that the morality system is a great way for solo can casual players to generate high end rewards in a highly deterministic fashion - and that the rewards are no higher on a team than they would be solo. There you go, a casual player specific system.

Well then, with the current system you also prefer not to gain the incarnate slots as quickly. Do I think "casual" players should get it more quickly? Yes. Do I think a good reason for that is "I prefer not to run TF's"? No.

If that's all you're looking for just ask people to pad for you. Most of the content, except probably the STF and possibly the LGTF, can be run with few people. Sister P can be run with 5 and that's in two weeks. I know I'd be willing to try running something like the ITF with a team of 4 just to see if it can be done. I would suggest asking people on your server's global channel to see if people would be willing to try...I'd be surprised if you couldn't find three more who wouldn't be interested to make the attempt for the challenge if nothing else. Finding people to pad for you shouldn't even be that hard.

See, this right here, is the problem. Inclusive, of equal pleasure (which I don't even know how to balance for...) does absolutely not equal "just as fast". Making a solo option slower (and the problem here is that a solo option isn't JUST a solo option, but another teamed option as well) doesn't make it exclusionary (although under certain conditions [like to be fair, the situation we have on test right now] it can).

It's almost ludicrous to hear that "casual" players (again whatever that means, but let's say for our purposes, people who do not want to engage in difficult teamed content for whatever reason) want the same rewards AS FAST as those who are engaging in content that's explicitly teamed content. The developers have decided that teamed content - specifically larger scale (teams of 8 or more (sister P will be an outlier here, but I can only infer that the WSF will not be the best way to gain the notice as it will be designed) teamed content - should be the fastest way to achieve those drops. Everything else - including that mythical solo option - is ALSO teamed content but with different initial requirements. It is patently impossible to balance a "solo" or "casual" option that is equal to the "hardcore" (whatever that means, but for this game that apparently means a TF lasting 30 minutes - 2 hours) because the initial conditions are not equal. And they're not because the "hardcore" players are also doing "casual" content. Create a "solo" option that is "casual-friendly" but also difficult, and people will still complain. See Trapdoor. See Protean. Both of which can be solo, and possibly casual friendly (unless you're an MM for Protean), but people still complain that they're incredibly difficult.

Which, to my mind least, the devs cannot think to create content that is "casual friendly" that is equal in any way to "difficult teamed content" (which, by the way, is not necessarily more difficult in terms of game difficulty, but certainly less forgiving of failure, which puts a whole new thing into the argument but whatever). The only way to truly balance the different content is to specifically make the one that is less forgiving drop rewards the push progression more quickly for those who engage with it.

Whether the "solo" or "casual" option is, right now, the proper distance apart is something else. As I said, right now I don't think it is, but it's still fairly early in the process. And even if it goes live the way it is, I can imagine many situations that the devs would change it according to where they want that sweet spot to eventually end up.

It also should be noted that it's easier, from a PR standpoint, to set the bar initially far apart and approach the sweet spot from the direction of slower "leveling" speed, than faster, for the simple reason that if the developers at any point in the open beta process, make the speed slower a portion of the player base is going to talk about a nerf to the system. If they make it faster it's an easier sell to the playerbase and they get good PR out of it. With all that being said, I still feel like the bar is set strangely far apart here.