Haetron
-
Posts
602 -
Joined
-
Quote:Im more amazed that she was annoying enough at one point to be permabanned, got her posting privileges restored by a loophole in the forum transition merging the EU and US forums, and has continued acting exactly the same and gets "TEH INSIDE SCOOP" now.Originally Posted by rian_frostdrake
you know, after she called the 4 legged rig thing, i have begun to pay more attention to her. from what i understand she hits the big developer fan meetups often and has mentioned hearing devs talking ingame with info, so while she cant outright say things, I do sometimes think there may be wisdom in noting if she seems really sure of something. It may not be unreasonable to think that with her general omnipresence in the game and community, she might have some ears that less involved members may not have. also, april is really pretty far off, so I'd be far more surprised if it actually was that long.
-
Quote:That's not what the Origin of Powers actually asserts, but it's how the current writing staff has chosen to portray it, which is a shame. I remember reading Web of Arachnos with the initial Well of Furies description (well, to the public anyway) and the feeling it gives isn't even really so much as magic, as it is, alien, or, if we want to use comic book terms.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Unfortunately, this gets to the writing train-wreck that is *my* pet-peeve, which is that Origin of Powers asserts canonically that everything is magic.
Cosmic.
This is how it should have actually been handled, but instead, well, we're getting what we're getting. -
I thought the reason for this change was simple.
The hinted incestuous relationship between Tyrant and Dominatrix was unacceptable, and then retconned.
The hinted pedophile relationship between CWK and Penelope Yin was unacceptable and then retconned.
IMO, the problem isn't that the retcons occurred, it's that someone actually ok'd the original take on things in the first place. -
Quote:See, the thing is, Wade isn't so bad, because if you paid attention to various tips, the midnighter arcs, and his own arc, you actually -see- most of these pieces being gathered together. The only thing wrong with Wade is his costume/appearance.Originally Posted by Venture
There is a very fine line between a Xanatos Gambit and a Villain Sue, and Darren Wade has super-leaped across it.
Now, me saying that still doesn't mean SSA 6 was any good. Honestly, the whole thing feels clumsy and forced. PenYin showing up as FULL GROWN (and she was always 18 folks, honest!) most powerful psychic on the planet, Sister Psyche getting killed as an "Oh, SHES ALSO DYING TOO", and the last minute "oh, btw, we barely mention him this entire arc until the last mission, but wade stole Psyche's powers too."
The villain version is apparently better, explaining the why's and how's (and also, Apparently evil borealis lives and a hint is given that psyche may have survived as well) but as a stand alone part, the blue side arc was easily the worst of the 6 yet. -
Im going to take a different approach on my suggestion.
IMO, Tankers don't really need to be more survivable, and giving tanks "more damage" just causes more similarities and overlaps with Brutes and Scrappers.
Tankers, need something unique, that those two ATs do no possess, that still allows the tanker to do it's job of protecting the team, and can also help the tank solo.
IMO, Tanker Secondaries need a review. They need to be distanced from their proliferated cousins in Scrapper and Brutes.
First, and more importantly, IMO: Taunt needs to be revamped. Every tanker is expected to take it, but it does almost nothing for the tank itself. There's essentially two options I'd like to propose.
1: Taunt is changed to an AOE attack, with a strong secondary effect. IE: Energy Melee's taunt is a stun AOE, Dark Melee's is a -tohit AOE, Elec Melee's is a -end AOE. Some are obvious, others might need something different. IE: Fire Melee's taunt would be a -regen AOE, because just getting another splash damage AOE isn't really an answer.
2. Give Taunt an effect similar to Beam Rifles "Disintegration" that causes further attacks on the taunt target to generate splash debuffs/control effects, or possibly more damage. (But again, imo, the solution to the tanker issue is not giving them more damage.)
Another possible thing to review is the secondary effects of Tanker attacks (Such as EMs chance for stun, or Dark Melees -tohit) and increase them enough that they're considered a valuable part of using the attack, and not just a random tacked on bonus. This would effectively let the Tankers fill in the support areas of buffs/control, depending on which Secondary is currently in use.
Basically, IMO, what tankers need is to not take a step closer to Brutes and Scrappers, but a step closer to Defenders/Corrs, and Controllers/Dominators. This would solidify the worth of the tank as a -team friendly- AT, but also gives it things it can use if soloing.
The best thing about going about tanker changes this way is that it helps increase the value and use of tankers overall, and gives them a unique role that many players have wanted in the game for sometime, melee focused ATs that can do Control or Buff effects. This also still allows people who currently play their tanks to continue playing them as is.
Finally, this particular path helps make sure that there's still powerset balance, something that would be harder to achieve with an inherent change. IE, lower damage tanker sets could get splash/aoe damage affects on their taunt, while sets already performing suitably well in the damage area could simply get some buff/control changes.
This is just my opinion, after running a handful of tanks. The changes tankers need aren't going to be found in resistance, defense, and damage modifiers, IMO. -
Quote:Great, not my description of her pet as "The Urineball" makes even -more- sense.Originally Posted by ThePill
with rookie heroine P. Yin(*snerk*If they don't give her a "hero" name, this is how I will forever refer to her as)
Thanks for that. :\ -
Played Blueside:
It was a total thrill taking part in "The Penelope Yin Action Hour: Guest Starring the player character who will never be as awesome as me!"
Also good to know that animation/art time was apparently taken up with making her custom Psionic Thunder God/Psychic Claw/Master of the Urineball AT.
Cause you know, there's not enough time for stuff for players, but we can give an NPC like, 5-6 new unique powers. ((I will rescind this criticism if these new powers are eventually made for players, but they're so over the top, I doubt they will be.))
Also, somehow, us curing Sister Psyche was planned for by Darrin Wade and he was able to steal SP's powers, even though he's not really a presence in this arc at all up until the last mission.
Also, Manticore apparently has his specially prepared MURDER ARROW because, wtf, that thing was ridiculous. (Also, as a TA, he had a bajillion non-lethal options.)
Also, "Justin, my powers are killing you and all of PARAGON!" while we see Sister Psyche "seeing" this all happen, but Manticore just kinda stands there and shrugs and feels nothing, and there's no fallout mentioned by Greer in the wrap up dialogue. It'd be hilarious if it turned out she was hallucinating.
Also, the whole "WADE WAS NEVER GOING TO SET ME FREE" thing made zero sense, as Wade wasn't the true source of the problem and aside from a magical macguffin oranbegan artifact the player never sees, wasn't connected to this arc at all.
The second mission seemed like it was scripted through "Mad Libs" "Meet ___ at ___" "Stop ___ from kidnapping ___!" Thats the only way meeting Akarist at Portal Corp and stopping Nemesis from kidnapping him makes any sense.
The first mission, you have Vanessa Devore offer you advice if you hold off the Malta group attacking her (Yes, this makes sense somehow?) and then after you do so, if you try to arrest her, she pretty much "LOL CYAs" you and ports away. Leaving me to wonder... if she could just port away why sit there during the malta ambush and help the heroes at all?
Overall, this particular SSA was just bad.
And I feel bad saying that, as I know a lot of work gets put into these things, but it was just a perfect storm of utter garbage.
-
Just wondering if anyone else bumped into this yet. It was .. unexpected.
One from Mynx to Arbiter Sands, and one from Sands to Mynx rofl.
First, get one from -Mynx-. You know. The vindicator?
Quote:Can deliver it to Sands, and be all YAY THE POWER OF LOVE (it actually implies Im gonna use it to blackmail Sands, which ... doesn't sound very heroic, but hey.)Sands,
I don't know why I'm even writing you. Maybe something about the holiday convinced me to give this thing between us another shot. Either way, I can't help but feel like we are doing something incredibly dumb here. What if someone in Arachnos or the Vindicators finds out?
I'll be at Pocket D tonight and would like it if you at least stopped by for a drink so we can talk.
If you want to get together, I'm willing to keep us a secret for a little while longer, at least until I've figured out how to tell Megan. If not, well, we both know which side we're on.
Love,
-Katherine.
But that's not all!
This one you can deliver to Mynx, or you can deliver to Ms Liberty to rat out Mynx.Quote:Dearest Katherine,
I hope this letter does not reach you too late, and that there is still time for me to explain myself, or rather, to explain the void of my being in your life as of late.
What we had, at least for me, was wonderful, and there is nothing more in this world that I would like than to be with you again. However, as we discussed, things are complicated between us, and the world seems out of my control. My loyalties cannot come into question or it will surely spell my doom, yet here I am, throwing caution to the wind by sending a message to you at all. Please understand that my silence does not mean that I do not wish to speak with you, but rather, it is necessary to ensure I have a chance in the future to see you once more.
Were the spiders on the walls to see or hear of what I feel for you, death would follow swiftly. For both of our sakes, I ask that you wait for me to contact you when it is safe. Do not seek me out for it will endanger us both.
-Sands.
Ya know. That's no big deal and should have no consequences at all.
Also, this is how I did it. First, I got the Mynx tip, even though it's pretty clearly should be rogue/villain only cause I cant go to grandville if Im a hero. And as a hero, Sands dialogue makes little sense. BUT ANYWAY
So, on the opposite one, I decided to rat out Mynx, because, well, national security threat and all.Quote:
I assume you intend to try and blackmail me with this? Good luck with that. Firstly, to do so would be an 'attack' on an Arbiter, which, as you well know, would be an attack upon Lord Recluse himself. But that is besides the point. The point is, what for Katherine was perhaps one of the most memorable nights of her life, filled with danger, mystery, and romance, was just a Tuesday night for Arbiter Sands. My relations with Ms. Stevens and subsequent rejection is more damaging to her than any physical combat she has ever been in and is all part of my plan to weaken the Vindicators.
Now then, repeat after me: Hail Arachnos, Hail Lord Recluse, blah, blah, etc, etc. I'm glad we had this talk.
(Also, sent me to Fort Trident. luckily, I am a hero!)
Quote:Ok... Megan, you can handle this... this isn't that bad. Katherine is just, experimenting, going for the bad boy. We've all been there before... right?
Sovereign-Fist, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll have to talk to Mynx about this. I hope it's just a hoax, but if it isn't... well, I just hope I still have a friend after this...
Seriously though? Arbiter Sands? When could that have even happened?!
-
I think they just honestly reused the model and didn't care. A lot of the new Spring Fling stuff shows a lack of attention to detail.
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Golden Girl
He's more of a red side contact rather than a Praetorian contact - the FW storyline lacks any really evil stuff, so he's there to satisfy the moustache twirlers.
LOL
Did you actually play the FW arc? You know. Sober? -
Quote:So Im guessing there's even less chance of seeing Kheldian power customization, even of the non-shapeshift powers?Originally Posted by Tunnel Rat
Unfortunately, updating our Fire, Electric and Dark sets is not a half-issue workload. With the time we have budgeted for working on powersets, it's more like a 6 or 7 issue workload, with no new powersets coming out during that time.
Alternate effects are still an idea I want to explore, but we need to balance their scheduling carefully with creating fresh content.
I mean, I can understand the tech reasons behind dwarf and nova and their forms and blasts not being customizable, but is there a chance we'll at least see human form power customization at some point? -
... got a valentine from an AI to Mark IV in Founders. This was his reply.
Quote:Identity: Sovereign-Fist. Confirmed. How might we interact with one another today?
You hand Mark IV the data tablet and he reviews the message and data in turn, he then returns the tablet to you before responding.
Data: Received and saved to databanks.
Reaction: Salutations and appreciation for delivery of data.
Objective: Await physical construction of compatible partner to begin suggested procreation process.
Remark: I dislike waiting for such an important and momentous occasion.
Achievement Unlocked: Anxiety achieved!
Achievement Unlocked: Frustration achieved!
Achievement Unlocked: Longing achieved!
Emotional Status: Level Up! Emotional Level has increased from 2 to 3. -
I "remade" my main, with just a hyphen between the two parts of his name. The old one gets used to market occaisonally, and I keep for nostalgia reasons but I will probably never, ever, play seriously again.
Because Dark Armor sucks on Brutes. And then they ruined Energy Melee so it's unusable on any efficient team.
(Disclaimer: Dark Armor Brutes become moderately playable with the right incarnate abilities, or with a multi-billion inf IO investment. I can not comment on the playability of Dark Armor Scrappers, or Dark Armor Tanks. I have a theory they would be better, but Im not willing to invest time in playing a set that I found sub-par on one AT already.) -
Quote:The reason I suspect?Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
We already have Power Slide that uses standing animations so why couldn't that have been altered to use Rocket Board with flying? Then they could have added/sold a whole bunch of variations of what we were standing on as costume choices, and because it would use currently existing travel powers they wouldn't have needed to add new animations or detoggling.
They already did this with Wings, Boots, and animated Back Packs.
Wings, boots, and Backpacks are part of the character model. The Rocket Board is instead, a power animation effect. It's not a persistent object.
They can get away with this on the power slide animation because, well, for one, it's -wide-. If the character stops moving and attacks, their feet simply go to the normal "standing" option for the attack. Since it's an "energy-ish" effect, and it's not defined well enough to cause an issue.
With the Rocket Board, this would most likely result in your character stepping "off" of the board in a best case scenario, worst case scenario, it'd spin and twitch to try and keep the same feet position. And to my knowledge, no power in the game currently does that. And it'd look fairly horrible.
There's also the fact the Rocket Board -flies- which means the character would attempt to use "flying" animations for it attacks. This would result in the character looking like it's either jumping off the board and floating to attack, or the board tilting at unnatural angles to stay locked to the feet.
I suspect this also applies to the Carpet, as you would be jumping and playing a flying animation while on the flying object, which would result in "why is the character using the carpet if it can fly?"
Coyote is even simpler. Your entire character model is overlapped and changed, if you could attack with the coyote, you'd see melee characters with floating swords, or invisible weaponry, and attack animations impacting nowhere near where the coyote is standing. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Mosquito
Give Positron the Statesman TF, as well as leadership of the Phalanx.
Give Brawler the Positron TFs.
That's pretty simple, right? I don't recall anything about Positron's TFs having anything to do with Pos himself.
God no. One, it forces unnecessary changes beyond what is already being done. BAB doesnt currently have a TF, and he's currently just a redundant trainer in Atlas, so have him take States spot for giving the STF. (Him being retired would also explain why he's just directing traffic instead of going in to beat up Recluse himself.)
And the mere thought of Positron becoming he head of the Freedom Phalanx is so stomach churningly bad. There's literally -nothing- good that comes from it. -
On the big picture, you can see Dark Watcher in the upper left hand corner between red clockwork guy and green guy.
I'd expect, given him and States history, he wouldn't be so far back, but then, for the character, maybe it fits.
Also, I just realized that this means Dark Watcher is the last living original Phalanx member. -
Quote:Exactly.Originally Posted by Eva Destruction
If you're going to play the "you can't destroy the world because if you do you won't be able to play the game anymore" card, it's only fair to look at it from the other side. The villain du jour can't destroy the world either, because if they do we won't be able to play the game anymore.
That's why that villain never will. They may state that's their intent, they might take the steps to do so, but the player will always stop them. And if it is a fail possible mission, you'll find usually an NPC stepped in to do what you cannot.
That's why world-destroyers are not good Player Characters, they're best used as a non-played character to provide an obstacle to PC goals. -
Quote:This is a great idea, and due to random server glitching, has actually happened!Originally Posted by Lulipop
What this game needs is a possibility for mission interruptions.
Make a mission that heroes run that Villains can join in at the ''worst'' possible time to complicate things. Or a ''betray'' option, or something fun that can spoil the mission. The villains will have to deal with not getting loot for doing it, and the heroes will have to take it all in stride.
Or make a trial like instance where 1/2 are heroes (4), and (4) are villains; enter on opposite sides and turn it into a PVP brawl with tasks on either side that are needed to be completed before a timer runs out, or something.
I also think villains being ushered towards heroism is a tad ridiculous.
A friend of mine was once ported into a villains mayhem mission, and both were PVP flagged, so my friend was able to "send them to jail" so to speak. Mind you, she was on a level 50 and it was a level 15ish mayhem, so she was also not a jerk afterwards and let the person go ahead and finish after the initial HAHA moment.
This is something I think a part of the playerbase would like, but due to the majority of the playerbase being very anti-PVP, I don't think we'll ever see it. Which is a shame, because it's really what the comic hero/villain genre is based around, and it's not like there's any negative impacts to losing a PVP encounter. -
Quote:Yep, and I said as much, earlier in the thread. Some people have their standards of "Win" set unrealistically.Originally Posted by Tenzhi
In which case complaining that Evil can't win is a fictitious notion to begin with.
I was just quoting your post because on the opposite side, its an argument that a lot of hero side players use as a counter argument to the "Why can't villains win" posts and just saying "Evil can't win" is a completely false, and for gameplay purposes, unfair concept. -
Quote:This is also setting an incorrect standard for the co-existing RP experience, and isn't even true in CoV. How many banks does the average villain player get to rob, how many police officers do they get to disable/murder, all without facing a real consequence for said actions?Originally Posted by Tenzhi
At the end of the day, it's a given that Evil loses. No one is being forced to choose the losing side. Choosing to be on the losing team and then complaining that you can't win is... well, appropriate behaviour for a cartoon villain I suppose.
This has to be this way, because the players of both sides need to feel there's a chance for victory, yet no victory can be permanent as it would negatively affect the opposite side.
Also, if Evil always loses, the struggle to overcome it loses merit and thus becomes less interesting.
Basically, the player -can- Win/Lose, but it has to be on a small, non-permanent scale. Anything else will eventually break the game environment. -
Quote:Enjoy playing them alone.Originally Posted by Lothic
I prefer to see a future where multiplayer games are not confined to the limitations you wish to keep them shackled to. *shrugs*
The model you want has been tried several times, and it always ultimately fails, because the majority of gamers don't want to face the idea of actions with permanent consequence unless that consequence is a positive for themselves.
The second you provide the option for both moral viewpoints to be played by players in a game, is the point you have to strip the idea of consequence from the game, because the majority of players absolutely refuse to indulge the idea of a consequence being forced upon them by another player.
You can get such an experience with a smaller group in some games, but even then, squabbles will inevitably happen that ruin the play experience.
And I don't wish for games to be shackled to this. Im definitely in the minority of wanting games to have consequence and players being able to impact other players. But, I realize such things are not marketable, and thus will not occur. -
Quote:The only reason your played villain is "Losing" is because you've set unrealistic goals for them. City of Villains has multiple situations where, you, as the villain, commit your villainy and face no permanent consequence at all for doing so. That's allowing the player to win. And you're allowed to do so pretty much as often as you wish, provided you can beat the npc statblock that's provided as an obstacle.Originally Posted by Lothic
There's a difference between "good conquering evil" in generic literature and a HUMAN PLAYER playing a villain. What motivation does a person have to continue playing a character who's doomed by unalterable fate to lose? I'll admit playing a doomed character is appealing sometimes, but not all the time.
I submit that a human player playing a villain ought to be able to "win" at least once in a while, otherwise what's the point? -
Quote:That's because, in and of itself, it would be. But sure, I'll address the second part.Originally Posted by Lothic
Somehow you keep trying to say that the inherent limitations of having to stick to a static model for a MMO is the only excuse necessary to justify hampering an entire concept of roleplay.
It has nothing to do with the game system and everything to do with the Dev Intent for the game. The game is meant to be a multiplayer experience. The "system" for letting your villain "Destroy the world" would probably be fairly easy to put into place, but then what?Quote:Games don't make arbitrary "rules" to limit player freedom on purpose. The only reason we can't play "world destroying" villains in this game is because the game system is inadequate to allow for it, not because the Devs would ever make an arbitrary "rule" against it.
Do other players that might not want the world to be destroyed get a chance to stop you?
Nope, because PVP is consensual, and if you never consent to PVP, you're tossing out the wishes of other players and characters while you pursue your goal.
And if you're on a team with people, what happens if the people on your team don't agree with you pushing the button?
There's two possible answers. One: Non-consensual PVP, and the winner gets to do what they want. Two: Don't ever let the player push the button.
This isn't just an MMO thing, because it eventually happens in -all- multiplayer RP games, Pen and Paper or otherwise. And all of these games usually prohibit the use of said "monstrous" villains as player characters, because it puts the players into a competitive position and can potentially destroy the game environment.
The hero's can also gripe about this to a degree. IE, Why can't my hero ever just put a bullet in Countess Crey's head and expose the company to the world at large?
Because then other players lose that faction to play with/against and it's a permanent alteration to the sandbox not to be made lightly. It's why players in any ONGOING multiplayer RP game, MMO or otherwise, cannot make permanent change. The moment you start doing so, is the moment you start taking steps on a path to an inevitable end of the game.
Making characters where you want to enable permanent, worldshaping, change in a multiplayer RP game without a set ending is folly, and to rage when you're not allowed to do so is doubly so.
All games have rules, and in this case, you can't blame the mechanics, because it's not a mechanical decision/limitation. It's one placed by the GMs (Or in this case, the Devs) to enable the continued existence of the game for all players.
Now, if it was a console game or a game for like, 3-4 players with a finite end? Yes, what you want is possible. It's still tricky however, to pull off, without ending up being a negative play experience for at least some parts of the group, if the players in the group wind up on opposing sides. -
Quote:Every game has rules. Breaking those rules is effectively "playing wrong".Originally Posted by Lothic
Trying to claim players are "playing wrong" because the game won't let them play the way they want is absolutely ridiculous.
In CoV, the setting is what provides the rules. Basically, every player villain starts out fairly small time, and ultimately, gets a small taste of possible epic villainy, but can never follow through, because doing so would break the game experience. Nothing in CoV supports the idea of the player ever being an immortal god king that could destroy the universe then escape safely to their home dimension. (Yes, Im taking into account Praetorians, and even they never have the power to pull this off.)
It's like complaining in a baseball game that you can't just hit the ball wherever and the other team has to go make a play on it regardless of where it lands. (IE, a foul ball) Lines and rules exist in all games for a reason. Choosing to ignore those things then complain the game doesn't turn out the way you expect is just folly, and effectively, yes, playing the game wrong. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Nalrok_AthZimI'm getting sick of that argument too. What if my character can slip into the space-time continuum? What if my character's from an ALTERNATE universe? What if, instead of feeding us the same "But you'll die too" crap we've been getting since the Rikti invasion, the storywriters allowed villains more flexibility than just "do it because it's the right thing to do"? How about that?There's a simple solution here.Quote:Originally Posted by Nalrok_AthZim
If Supervillain A was going to push the red button to destroy the world, at least 4 of my characters would knock him aside and push the button themselves, laughing until the lights went out.
You need to quit playing poor-quality characters that have no artistic value for a multiplayer experience.
The developers, first and foremost, are working on crafting a multiplayer experience. This means that the classic "World Devouring, Life Ending, Catastrophe causing" type villain doesn't work, and it's why the game never actually gives you the tools to be one. You just wind up making up ridiculous backstory and then complaining the game doesn't fold to what you've created.
Edit: Let me add, making this kind of character is fine, as a foil for other characters to try and overcome, and as a plot to be resolved. I have -one- myself, but I don't hold any kind of insane notion the character will ever get to "win" because the process of doing so is gamebreaking. If you're making a character like this for any reason other than to be a obstacle to eventually be overcome by other people, you're doing it wrong.