EvilGeko

BULL!

It's a game. Games have rules. Heroes and Villains can't fight each other in three zones right now. It's probably going to be more than than if I understand how Praetoria is going to work.

Many games allow good and evil characters to exist in the same PvE space. This is a good idea and should be how they implement GR.

By contrast, I'm a big proponent of legislating for health and safety reasons. Taking this back into the CoX context, are you saying that it's OK for the Scrapper in this context to not get to use their powers because the Blaster could kill them?

So if the DM is the team leader and kicks the Blaster immediately after this spawn dies, because as you say the Blaster makes him superfluous (thus eliminating his fun), you would have no quarrel with that?

I don't think wallflowers avoid teaming. They avoid LEADING. On Justice, I have a lot of fun when I make teams. I put on my cheesy salesman shtick and basically spam the global channels until people join. It's the EvilGeko's form of terrorism!

But I always wind up with a team. So I don't think this discourages teaming at all. At least no more than the flags you can already set on TFs.

Not at all. The PvP flag is there to MANDATE that players play a certain way. In this case, that they not be allowed to use their travel powers. This meets the EXACT condition that Arcanaville says the devs should not allow. It allows the organizer to unilaterally decide what powers your character is ALLOWED to use. And the person can have whatever reasons he or she chooses for using that flag.

As I've said, what's really at issue is that people feel that the use of such a "anti-KB" flag is illegitimate, but then it can't be in a game which allows PvP organizer to shut off powers and allows team leaders to debuff players and shut off enhancements.

Again, as I've said, I have no quarrel with such a flag. I stand here prepared to allow team leaders a great deal of control over their teams. My suspicion is that team leaders would exercise a great deal of restraint in the general case, although the anti-KB flag might be the most popular of them all.

Ban it for the whole game? Hell no? Allow a team leader to ban immobilize (hell all control effects if he or she wants)? Sure. I'll get behind that. It's just a play option. No one would be forced to play in such a team.

But then, doesn't that ask another player to subjugate their fun (using Soul Drain) to another player (the KB player)? And doesn't that undercut the argument that KB isn't at least mildly deleterious to other players?

Interestingly, when you phrase it like that, I'm even more convinced it's just. Team leaders do a somewhat thankless job, especially when recruiting for TFs that take a goodly amount of time.

Giving that person some ability to control the experience of the team in a way superior to the other players just doesn't seem unfair.

I wouldn't argue that, because you're right it's a very discriminating debuff. However, KB effects themselves don't affect all allies equally. Take two Scrappers, one DM, one BS. The Broadsword Scrapper hits BU. Get his or her buff and is good. The DM clusters up a nice group of mobs for Soul Drain and then right before hitting the button, the Energy Blaster scatters them to the four winds. DM wastes both an AoE attack and gets no buff.


Well, that would seem a bit more offensive on its face, but you know what, to hell with it, I'll argue for it. Why? Because the defender can still hit "Quit Team" and play with someone else.

But, this doesn't do that. You always, always have the ability to quit a team and play with people who agree with your playstyle. Teams are social constructs, and I can see much merit in allowing a team leader a great amount of control of team dynamics. Why?

Well, forming teams in my MMO experience is not something that many people want to do. I know from experience that if I want a particular TF done, I often have to build it myself. So I think that giving team leaders a greater control of their experience could be a fair tradeoff.

I'll give you a better example. In teams I run, you do not get to refuse buffs unless you can prove you don't need them to survive. My Cold Defender gets tons of request not to buff them and I try to work it out with the player, but bottom line I want the team to succeed and they can play elsewhere if they don't appreciate a buff.

So long as its a team based power, giving the player the ability to cancel the "buff" by quitting. No I don't have a problem with it.

Can't you already set that flag in PvP matches?

I draw no line in the group context. I'm perfectly willing to see a group power that says "Disable all powers other than Brawl" so long as people can quit to avoid it. Now such a power probably wouldn't be very popular so it's probably not a good idea, but a "Anti-KB" flag would probably be quite popular and so it's at least defensible.

Well, from an efficiency standpoint (as you eloquently pointed out) KD is superior to KB. So this meets your requirement no?

Well, you're correct, but I don't think that analogy is apt. Setting my HP to zero has several problems that the "Anti-KB" flag does not. First, it's not clear who, other than you or Memphis Bill would find such a flag fun. Second, this wouldn't simply eliminate one effect from my powers, this would shut off the game for me. So yes, they aren't equal positions. The person arguing against that position is arguing not to eliminate a customer where the pro argument is arguing for a change that has no definable benefit to them.

As I was thinking through this, can't team leaders set some really draconian options on Task Forces? I seem to remember there being a flag where you can debuff the team. It seems to me that such a flag does something very similar to the "Anti-KB" flag. And it put's a great amount of power in the hands of the team leader.

If such a flag can be defended on the basis of "Well if you don't want to play the TF under that debuff you can quit," then I don't see this as that far away from that. It appears that the difference is one of motive. The motive of the Anti-KB team leader is seen as illegitimate and thus rejected. But in both cases, it's a question of wanting to have a certain experience in game.

But this doesn't cross that line. You aren't ever going to be required to play a certain way. Just like with super-sidekicking, I'm not required to play in a team that lowers my level 50 to level 7. Or in an Arena match, where my travel powers are shut off. Or, as stated, on a TF where my temp powers are shut off.

Giving this CHOICE doesn't FORCE anyone to play on a team where the choice has been exercised.

It does seem to me that the real concern is the popularity such a flag might hold. Now, I don't have any way to measure that, and I could agree that if such a flag were so popular that people who loved KB couldn't find teams that would tolerate it that might be a bad thing. But then, that would give you an opportunity to argue for the KB that you think the game should have and we do love when the Queen O' Maths gets all designery on us!

Well, that's what I thought. Thanks.

I thought that too. I'm not sure if it's worth it or not, but I sure would like to see it.

My only quarrel with your idea is that Peacebringers only have two ST and one AoE melee attacks in human form. And both attacks are on a decent recharge.

I think Bill is on the right track, but I also think that PBs should have VEAT modifiers to their defenses as well.

This. It's time to fix those TFs. Seriously, if they have a more powerful MA tool, then just pull out the old TF and replace it with a new one.

You shouldn't assume.


And other MMOs I can think of offer much more freedom to allow players to use their AoE in efficient ways. I don't play Champions so I don't have any experience there, but from what I've heard and read, I wouldn't consider anything in that game as persuasive authority.


Well, people have "Kick" which works pretty well right now. What people are arguing is that they would like to have a less drastic means. I don't necessarily think it's needed, but that doesn't make the argument unreasonable.

And no, you don't have to justify anything. Still doesn't change my point. Even the OP's idea, as flawed as it was, wouldn't harm anyone. If you don't want to play in a team where the team leader has set such a flag, then you can quit and play with people who enjoy KB. That you see it as "policing" demonstrates what I'm saying. That you don't want people to enjoy their game if it hurts or changes the way that YOU enjoy the game. It's the same argument, on in reverse.


You're probably the only one who will answer me so let me ask you this. Why couldn't all KB powers have two effects:

1) .67 KB not modifiable by buffs or enhancements
2) Whatever other KB mag they have now

Then you create a "Anti-KB" IO that multiplies the KB value by 0. The KB gets eliminated, leaving only the .67 KD effect.

Would that not work? (That is an actual question, not a rhetorical device)

Agreed.

Agreed.


Maybe it wouldn't. I'll invest in your game (seriously), it would be worth seeing what you come up with.

Agreed Bill, but then you're wrong (as I must disagree somewhere with you in every post ) because I already said that I don't think the OP's idea is a good one. I tend not to repeat points in these threads unless necessary (like now).

The devs put a lot of things into the game. For example, Arcanaville has railed against the extreme amounts of to-hit in the game for years. The devs put that in the game too. And I can think of multiple examples in comics, movies, etc. of people being near perfect shots. But that, thankfully, has to give way at times to gameplay necessity to make the game fun.

Likewise, there's nothing unreasonable about anyone suggesting that they don't find KB fun. Just because the devs put it in the game doesn't mean that they couldn't take it out.

And I question whether it's really that prevalent in comics, the movies, et. al. It's there of course, but nowhere near as common as it is in this game. Sure, extremely strong foes can knock foes around, but it's usually used to demonstrate their power and not something that occurs on every blow. Take for example, Cyclops. His blast are kinetic energy. And they're very powerful. But they don't cause KB every time he uses them. Hell, I just looked at a few X-men and there were multiple times where he didn't KB a foe once in a single issue.

So your point, facially sound, doesn't really change the point. Actually proves my point. That the Pro-KB crowd is every bit as unreasonable as the anti-KB crowd. I'm pro-choice. Play however, you like, but let's give people the opportunity to "nerf" (as the pro-KB people call it) their KB to KD.

Good thing I didn't use that adjective then.

Well that would make sense, but like many things you've wanted for the game that make perfect sense from a balance standpoint, it wouldn't be fun for a great many people.

Taking efficiency out of the equation, KB just gets on my nerves sometimes. Especially AoE KB. I have characters, like my PB, who have AoE KB and really I just don't like playing the character sometimes because of it. Even if the KB was twice the damage it would still be annoying.

I find the pro-KB camp to be just as unreasonable as the anti-KB camp. The presumption, stated more than once by people in this thread, is that the only reason folks might not like KB is because of efficiency reasons. I don't think that's reasonable or fair. Personally, I get annoyed at KB sometimes, because I'll be playing my DM brute, pop off a Soul Drain and get the buff of one because of KB. Does this tick me off enough to want to kick someone? No. But it's not fun to have your powers be interfered with by someone else.

After all, is that what all you pro-KB folks are arguing? That you find KB fun, and you shouldn't have to conform your playstyle to other's desires? Well, that's exactly what you're asking people that don't like KB to do. Conform their playstyle to you. To ignore the things that they might find fun in the game so that you have more fun. You're making a value judgment that your playstyle is somehow more "valid" and it's just as unreasonable.

Personally, I'm all for choice. Give people a way to convert KB into KD and then you're done.

Not necessarily. But I wouldn't have a problem with open PvP so long as it was flagged.

For example, let say that in Paragon there were little old ladies who were targetable. If a villain robbed them, then they would be flagged for PvP.

Conversely, in say the Rogue Isles, perhaps you could protect some person from the oppressive Arachnos government, thus flagging yourself.

I disagree.

First to the Epic = Godmode thing. I don't think that's what people are looking for. I think people simply expect something special from an epic AT. Warshades do it (certainly at high levels), VEATs are all over it. Peacebringers actually have the right powers for it. But they're just so damn slow.

And this gets into the second point. Kheldians don't have a role. It's not that they can take on another ATs role...they can't really. They simply don't have a role. They are an additional teammate who MAY be able to do decent damage. With Peacebringers this is really problematic because they often don't have the options a Warshades does to at least bring that damage. If the right ATs are around they can do fine.

Pretty much this. Everything Bill said. I too find Warshades to be vastly superior, both in tri-form and going human form only.

What's the recharge needed on that?

I have FS, Cremate, Incinerate, and GFS on my Fire/SD and taking down AVs and such is boring it's taking so long.

There's already a precedent for it though. Teleport effects can be turned off on the recipient's end.

Well, and I'm going to get into trouble for saying this, but you already have the option of eliminating KB from your teams. It's called "Kick". Or if you're not the team leader "Leave team." It's not a nice thing to do and it can give you bad PUG karma, but if you feel strongly about knockback, just don't invite or team with people who use copious amounts of KB.

No.

Fluffy and sentinel have durations set for those powers in the context of their sets. In other words, the devs balance sets, not so much individual powers. Now the fact that electric is still allowed to under-perform is shocking, but there you go.

I've been thinking about this, and I think that instead of standard TFs giving double, it might behoove the devs to slot in Ouro TFs for villains that DO give 2x or even 2.5x merits since they don't have as many as heroes, nor TFs that give so many merits.