Chase_Arcanum

I'll start testing now in Grandville.

Heading to the highest tower then teleporting my minions over the edge. We'll see if they teleport back before going "splat."

Yep, written by our illustrious member Unsub.

Well, we had to make sure there was SOMETHING for you to be mad alike. You just wouldn't be the Angry_Citizen we know without it.

you'd just... well... be "_Citizen".

I don't know. There are very few foes that have things like autohit burn patches and the like- masterminds can practically pick their missions to avoid them most of the time. The omission of that hero-side hardly turns them godlike.

And just because you can mitigate the issues of a weakness, that's still a vulnerability you have to address tactically- a vulnerability that other Archetypes don't share.

I think MM's will do nicely heroside, I just don't see them doing significantly better than any of the other archetypes that are doing nicely heroside... particularly not enough to call them gods.

Question: What's special about Legacy Chain & Wyvern regarding masterminds? I usually sweep right through these guys. yeah, there's a few cone and AOE attacks, but they're so infrequent I never would have thought them very special, particularly at the low-mid level ranges you're saying are particularly juicy targets heroside. I must be missing something because I'd put them with the others you casually discount (freakshow, council, and sky raiders)...

At first glance, the low level heroside does have the Vaz. It also has more lost- with anathema mezzes appearing before most sets would have their mezz protection out there. Of course, the very low levels aren't that relevant, as we're essentially talking about a time when the mm has a mere 1-2 pets....

You're right that heroside doesn't use many area attacks like the demolitionist's, but masterminds might find other foes a challenge.

1) You don't have to fight a WHOLE lot of Council villainside while leveling up, compared to hero-side. In the mid-level range you mention, you'll be visiting Striga Isle. The "mix" of spawns is different there, and foes like the "War Wolves" -- appearing in large packs, with very heavy burst damage (mm pets fall faster to high burst dmg) and a tendency to run all over creation can make a MM's task harder. Add in the sonic-powered council members in later arcs there, and the fact that the low-burst-damage of MM pets almost guarantees that they'll trigger the Ascendants' Shield protection... dragging out fights.

2) You have Croatoa in that mid-range.
- Fir Bolg have some aoe's that might not rival demolitionists' in potency, but may exceed them in frequency. Fighting them in small halloween spawns is different than fighting them in notable numbers, so they might offer some tactical rethinking.

- Tuatha have pbaoe knockback, quicksand, AOE's and Fault... all the kinds of AOE movement-sensitive attacks that can reduce an AI-controlled pet's performance. Granted, the villains have been able to experience them (to some degree) during the winter event.

- The coven-- well, there's knockback pets in there that can do a number on your team... and they do tend to run (fly) a lot, so pet awareness will be critical lest you gather multiple spawns.

- Red Caps- I've seen many a mastermind let his pets go out of control in that winter cave's main room, to dire consequences. It isn't just the map. Red cap's high burst damage can bring a MM pet down fast, their tendency to move- and move fast- can make situational awareness challenging- and the MM Pets' tendency to do frequent bursts of light damage instead of fewer solid heavy hits almost guarantees that some of the red caps will get a chance to transform into their bigger cousin.

Again, none of those are anything a competent mastermind couldn't deal with, but many other archetypes could manage them BETTER and more effectively. Being just competent doesn't make you a god.

3) After that... well, you're mid-30's now. You'll be facing the vast amount of AOE attacks from Nemesis pretty soon (and ordering your men clear of the AOE self-destructs) along with the aoe-drain of the carnival. Again, both manageable, but again, you're more vulnerable than most other AT's to those things, so again. A good MM might be able to manage them, but a good non-MM could manage them BETTER.

That's a big difference.

When you have a new set- one that we haven't learned the "ins and outs" of... yet - and particularly if we have preconceived expectation for how an archetype is played- knowing it's numerically "not the worst" helps a LOT.

If you're sucking playing a set, there are two possibilities-- either the set is inherently flawed or you haven't found the tactics that make it function better.

If there are other sets that are numerically WORSE, then you know that the problem isn't ENTIRELY within the set. Your tactics probably need some worse. If you hear others citing how strong the set is for THEM, then there may really be tactics that make the set shine (of course, it could also be that those people have different priorities, too)

Regarding QQ:
While Urban Dictionary does suggest this origin, that's likely because that's where most people probably first discovered it. Those users there attribute it to Warcraft II's introduction of the keyboard command. That would've been 1995. I pretty sure that QQ... or more accurately, Q.Q was used on IRC and MUDS while I was still in the service (I got out in '94).

Back then, crying was usually represented with variations of the semicolon or T. ( ;_; ;.; T_T T-T ) As effective as they were, they were often associated with the silent-crying (the line and dot suggested a closed mouth while the semicolon dots and tops of the T's suggested squinty eyes).

When you wanted rage-or-shock-filled anger- the kind of thing that would lead to rage-quitting, you needed to communicate that rage. There were a couple of options- an open mouth ( ;o; , ToT ) had some advocates for the really "wailing cry" but many others... what seemed the majority in my crowd, seemed to gravitate to the "Wild eyed, with tears" looks of "Q.Q". This was almost always done in mockery of the person- you'd rarely, if ever, use it to describe yourself, but you'd use it to suggest how someone else reacted to something.

It might have been pure coincidence, but I like the idea that the Blizzard dev coming up with the keyboard commands saw the intuitive nature of the "q for quit" and made it closer to the ascii emote... a way to discreetly make the rage-quitter admit to his own emotions.

--------------------------------------
Regarding Dual Pistols

Are pistols the "worst"? Absolutely not.
Not by the numbers, not by the feel.

Are they the "best"? Absolutely not.
Nor should they. If every new powerset made the other powersets obsolete, they'd be bad for the game. You want to add to the options in the game, not subtract from them.

There are several "goals" to make that possible, two that are relevant to this conversation:
1) It fits within reasonable "low-average" with just casual, non-optimized play.
2) It should offer a slightly different kind of tactic, which, if adopted and mastered, will give high-average performance.

There are some people out there that play every blaster set like "just another blaster set" and miss out on the nuances of each. They've see the one or two sets that fit their playstyle as "clearly superior" and expect every new set to be introduced to, if anything, fit that playstyle even better. They'll see the set as under-performing. They'll probably Q.Q over this set- particularly if they feel betrayed by the hype.

Then there are those that take up the challenge of adjusting their tactics to get the most out of it. It very well *may be* that even with these adjustments the set still will not "shine enough," but they're reserving judgement until they REALLY get to weigh the options and push the envelope. True tactical optimization is more than the obvious "without aim, you gotta do this" or "use ammo X against foe Y."

True tactical optimization takes time to be discovered, debated, modified and retested. If that kind of exploration isn't for you, wait a few months until it's all distilled down into a "FOTM guide to maxing out Dual Pistols." You'll know it when it's out- people will be quoting it as they QQ that they shouldn't have to change their tactics to get the most out of a set.

hmm...

Well, barring those, we know Castle's got an in-game character.... and Dr Aeon's been a lot more active lately... though that'd mean bring up the Aeon / TV war....

Ok, still got the demorecords from my character poses... just need demos of Niviene & The Ocho to put my evil plan in motion..... CoH: Forum Edition.

For me? I'm not "anti-end-game" in the sense of "don't put this in or I'll throw a fit." It's more of "don't make the mistake of thinking this is in MY interest."

That's important for two reasons.

1) This IS a multifaceted game with plenty to do. Some of the things to do are very popular to a broad base, some appeal to niches. A dev has to decide where to spend the money and, more importantly, HOW MUCH.

Sometimes, even if something is underused, it's worth dumping a ton of cash on it trying to 'turn it around.' Sometimes, however, especially with limited resources, it's best to focus on the things that will draw the most interest in the most players.

I'm not saying "don't develop it." Even if I wanted to, I don't have access to the devs' budget. The best I can do is help them better identify how many people ARE interested in this... and I do this by saying that I'm NOT interested.

Heck, I'm not the selfish type that says "don't spend MY money making someone else happy." I've been very supportive of previous releases that had absolutely nothing of interest to me. Everyone needs SOME love. Voicing our opposition is just making sure that they don't mistake the breadth of the appeal.

(For me, "Ultra mode" is a bit like this- I expected to be in a very small minority in NOT having an ultra-mode-capable PC. I was amazed by the large number of people that shared my situation. If I'd been a dev, I'd have totally overestimated the breadth of the mode's appeal and overspent on this particular feature)

2) By explaining the problems we have with late-game content, we might be able to inspire some of the development effort to "ease" these barriers- much like those fears expressed by the anti-market / anti-loot crowd stressed to the devs the importance of NOT falling into the design traps of other MMO's market/loot structure.

As an example, "High Level" doesn't have to equate to cosmic-level stories. By raising such concerns early (while the ideas are still flowing at early levels and pointing out that as Batman tales remains predominantly non-cosmic despite being so powerful, we might POSSIBLY stress the merit of a few high-level (endgame?) arcs that are NOT particularly associated with extra dimensions, time travel, or space, but STILL feels natural to the veteran hero.

Thus, the devs have a chance to alleviate our fears, attract people that are normally a little opposed to the "generic" idea, and perhaps, now that it appeals to a broader audience, justify more funds in that direction.

We DO turn off XP / start a new character / do something else.

I think this whole tangent got started (or was it another thread) when people (like me) just tried to explain WHY they didn't see the need or interest to "race to 50" and so had little-to-no interest in "endgame material."

Me? I have three level 50's in over 5 years of play. Two of them wouldn't have gotten that far except I wanted to check out the epic AT's. Occasionally, I'm tempted to delete and reroll one of those three just to get her back to the right "feel." The other two are virtually retired- they might've gotten 20 minutes' play in the past year.

"Cosmic-Powered" doesn't have to mean originating from space- it's more a "Level of power" that's encountered than an origin. The term, among comic-users, usually refers to the stories & characters that rise to levels that bring the rest of humanity to insignificance- Galactus, the Watcher, the Phoenix Force, events that deal with the fates of metaverses or whole alternat dimensions, and the types of characters that regularly interact with them.

There's a big difference between occasional cosmic-level encounters and being cosmic-centric. Virtually every Marvel hero, for better or worse, seems to have faced Galactus at least once, it seems. Doesn't mean they're "cosmic powered"...

...Also doesn't mean that the crossover was a particularly good idea.

In fact, in most cases the stories eventually REVERT back to the core theme of the comic. This suggests that the authors knew it wasn't sustainable at that level. The X-men come back to earth and for the next 30 issues the writers to their best to make virtually no reference to that battle... after every DC "Crisis Infinitum" we see most heroes at a granular street level that seems to take pains NOT to mention the multiverse...

There are many heroes that are defined by their setting- the extended "Batman" family that's well-defined in fighting the threats of Gotham, for example. They may occasionally be yanked into the cosmic theme (often painfully and poorly done) but they inevitably go back to the character-defining settings they came from.

That's very different from characters that, at their core, are very "cosmic" in nature and are established with a cosmic environment surrounding them.


That's what CoH can't easily capture. A good comic character is defined as much by his setting as by his powers. You can occasionally pull him out of that setting for an interesting character piece (and to sell more comics), but the iconic character is defined best in that iconic setting, and almost always returns to it and the stories it fosters. Here, we seem to progress through all these settings, eventually putting them behind us, never to return.

Now, I'm perfectly fine with being selective in which of my characters' stories are "canon" with what *I* see my character doing. Heck, to be honest, very few of the game's stories have any relevance to how I see my characters' narratives, but the overall gameplay experience does establish a theme, and at some point, too many of the stories become TOO "cosmic" to me.... too different from the world that defines my character.

Fortunately, for me, Alts and AE can help fill the gap for me.

I'm very close to that sentiment, though I don't play characters to 50.... refuse to see 50 as any sort of achievement. My characters often stall out when they feel sufficiently "fleshed out" and further power-development actually detracts from my characters' concepts.

See, I personally enjoy the narrative of heroes that aren't so... well, cosmic-powered, I guess, is the term. When you get so damn powerful that you're hopping dimensions, battling giant world-devourers, and singlehandedly stopping alien invaders... well, that's beyond where I want my characters to be.

Long before I get to level 50, most of my characters feel pretty darn well-established for how I see them, and it almost seems like they start to lose their identity when I try to force them farther on and into stories that really don't fit their concept at all

Before I found that "uncheck" option, I did dislike the @ for aesthetic purposes (not as much as I disliked the readability of the font they chose to use, in keeping with the "comic book" theme).

But I really did like the overall solution, and was mildly surprised at how well it worked- particularly with the @ removed. Even at peak load, I didn't encounter any issues with duplicate names used in the same zone or channel unless they were intentional, and even then, it was relatively easy to tell them apart.

Overall, it caused less confusion than working in an office that had 6 "Daves" all within shouting distance of one another and substantially reduced the time I spent cursing at the character creator (which is rather remarkable, since the quirks of their "improved" creator had substantially INCREASED the time spent cursing during the costume-creation phase)

Well, I understand your lack of enthusiasm, but don't think the game's going to provide anything to make you feel better. No MMO is going to give you enough content itself to keep you satisfied. The cost of development time is too great for even WoW to try it with WoW-level subscriber numbers. They're gonna give you repeatable content... or player-created content, like AE, which you said you hardly need... or social content- where some of those animations that you're "meh" about might add some flavor... or alternate achievements, like badging... another thing you're "meh" about.

What could the devs have provided that WOULD have gotten you excited?

Personally, even though my epics are unlocked, I'm VERY glad to see the "Epic" archetypes removed from 50, mostly because it IS one less reason to rush to 50. I'm tired of teams that pointlessly race to max-level as fast as they can... mostly because so much flavor is missed in the quest... flavor I miss as well in a race to keep up with them. I do think 30 would be a better threshold... a little more time to work a build, particularly since both epics have some unique build quirks.

---

I'm "meh" because I've been busy and after 5+ years, there's content I still haven't done. Still a Task Force virgin, still have plenty of AE "devs' choice" missions I haven't seen... still only 4 level 50's and maybe a half dozen purple IO's total on all of them. Still more than happy to go online, run a few mishes, and just try to connect with old friends. I really don't need an issue pushed out before GR to keep me interested.

I do have some concernes, though: There seem to be some "stalled" but very promising tech pieces added in previous issues that it just *feels* like there could be more to them. More alternate weapons, anyone? How about mixing in more alternate animations now that we have the tech? Will there ever be another powerset proliferation cycle?

That's what I'm most curious about.

You made me reconsider.

Television brought us American Idol. There can be no forgiveness.

I'm still witholding my support for Dr. Aeon until my (e)mail-order Doctorate from Aeon University is processed.

Those would likely be safe... ish.

The key that they're looking for are the RMT investment of cash in and the potential to RMT the winnings back out... particularly with "games of chance" used to determine winnings.

Heck, there was just a recent court case in Korea, where participating in online gambling systems are illegal, where two guys got convicted for RMT'ing an MMO (using antigambling laws). It got overturned because the courts determined that the games were more "skill" than "chance" based. Had that game had traditional "luck" mechanics, the convictions would have likely stood.

They probably are flying under the radar right now with it.

One of the reasons Second Life changed THEIR policies on online casinos is that they got big enough to be noticed.

It's called an endorsement... letting your influence help another.

"Heya Mr Wentworths' guy, remember me? Yeah, *flexes* that was pretty awesome, wasn't it. Look, my good buddy deadbeat..."

"Umm... that's Deadbolt"

"yeah, thats' what I said... redbolt.... Y'see, he's a good friend of mine... has a lot of potential... I think... especially if you could, y'know... lend him a little hand? Y'know, a favor for him is a favor for me! Just... do what ya can?"

PP, you and I are in agreement there, but I fear we'd be in the minority.

I say let's apply the "giant monster code" to all baddies in in the "public" zones