Liquid

A statement like that was indeed made by Positron ("With that said, I have become the messenger for "there will never be a Pistol Scrapper". There really isn't much to discuss at this juncture."), and it was to me in a PM in May of 2006. Note, however, that it was made when Cryptic was still in control of CoH, and it was paired with the statement "I am even in favor of it" in response to a query about Pistol Scrappers, but the idea had been shot down (no pun intended) by someone else who is no longer associated with CoH. And before anyone else starts bashing me for having a "Statesman grudge", that person was not Jack Emmert, but I'm not going to name the person because I told Positron I wouldn't. I won't narrow it down any further than that.

That doesn't mean, however, that he hasn't changed his mind on it, or been shot down again by someone else. I'm going to assume that this is the case (that we'll still never see them), since Pistol Scrappers have not ever been hinted at with GR. I'd love to see a mostly-melee-range pistol set designed like Spines or Claws, but I'm done pushing for it.

I think this would be a better way to handle it if it was to be done. I'm generally against the idea of anything that completely nullifies the primary function of an entire given AT. Making it harder for them to perform that function in some situations is more interesting and fun, in my opinion.

I took what you said literally, yes. You then clarified.

Yep.

Yeah, I like that design.

I guess I'm saying I don't mind if that problem still exists in CoH's open world, because in CoH it's possible for me to ignore the combat in those zones entirely. That's an option to solve the immersion issue the author complains about-- give him an alternate path, and let the people who like open world stuff keep the small aggro radius, high density design.

That works for me! Doesn't Guild Wars basically work this way (no list, but it creates an instance for your team and your team only)? I've only played it very briefly. I love the idea. Let the non-combat activities be held in a location where you meet up with people you haven't explicitly chosen to play with. Hell, I'd be happy with a chat room like Diablo II had.

What caused this disagreement was that you said it required lowering the density of critters:

and I disagreed, saying that you could allow players to survive higher critter density. You then clarified that the important part was that it required lowering the density of combat-active players, to which I say, "sure. Though, I don't view that as a problem". I do understand that some (most?) MMO developers do.

You're right, it doesn't, but I wasn't trying to contradict that assertion-- it wasn't clarified until later in the discussion, and I agree with it. I think we understand each other now.

What makes it different is that you can have 50 people in the same area, fighting the same foes, without them being in sight of each other. Less content needs to be created.

I just want to be clear that I know that instancing doesn't solve the immersion breaking problem created by small aggro radii everywhere if combat still exists outside of instances. I'm not stupid.

But you don't have to have combat elsewhere. Or you can accept the lower density or lowered immersion caused by small aggro radii in the open world. Edit: Or you could have an area that dynamically adds more foes based on the number of people in it, along with a combat/aggro (remember, I'm not talking about eliminating aggro, just the small radius) system that will prevent the majority of foes from ganging up on one person and ignoring the other.

I don't see that as a problem unless you have a specific combat-active player density as a goal. I offer City of Heroes as an example of why a high combat-active density isn't a requirement for a successful MMO.

What's that, Neverwinter Nights?

Go for the eyes, Boo!

(Also: see? 66 is crippling, not instant death!)

Because the game is designed assuming that they won't. If the tank can't keep those mobs off the priority targets, what is the point of the tank?

This is great, but balance has to be kept in mind. Remember how the PvE balance minimum is supposed to be soloing "heroic" (now +0 x1) missions? Well, if you have frequent cases where you have to fight 2 spawns at once if you miss the hold or kill shot on that one mob (assuming you can pick out the mob that will be calling/running for help), suddenly the minimum is raised, requiring some buffs to some player builds. That now means that normal spawns are going to become less challenging. This is fine, to me (I don't think every spawn should be a challenge, I think there should be varying levels of difficulty throughout a mission to keep things interesting), but may not be fine to the devs. They may like their 3 minions = 1 player minimum.

Also, I hope that if it is done, it isn't over-done. I'd like this situation to be an occasional surprise, not something you expect to happen 10 times in one mission.

They could add interesting tricks that mobs can do, but I do hope a lot of thought goes into how it will affect overall gameplay.

Yes, I was commenting on his latter complaint.

That's his point. He's in line of sight, yet they aren't aggroing. You're within view, and they happily go about doing whatever they're doing while you attack their buddies because you're standing outside of their aggro radius. That's "hiding in plain sight", and he thinks that's "retarded".

Yes, this is the resulting issue, but I'm surprised that you're suggesting that the only option is to lower the density of critters. You can instead adjust player power level to take into account the higher density, and/or focus on instancing (and I'm sure there are other options I haven't thought of). City of Heroes is a step in that direction compared to open world MMOs-- if they only designed instance maps to be mostly rooms connected by short halls instead of mazes of halls with a few scattered rooms, and kept the foes in each room to the number that the developer expects the player(s) to handle, then we'd never have his described situation occur in missions.

I played with one group in 1994 that had a program written to handle the hit/damage checks on a TI 99/4A. We did still roll dice for crits, that was the fun part.

I thought he was saying the opposite:

I came to the conclusion that what he doesn't like about this is the aggro radius. I think he wants line of sight aggro based on facing, and to have worlds designed around this, instead of packing dozens of foes in a small area, while designing the game around a person only fighting a single spawn (whether it's 1 foe or 3 even con minions), which results in you fighting someone while several of their friends ignore the battle completely despite being within earshot and/or looking right at you.

Bolded for emphasis.

Too many people (game developers included) think good AI is AI designed to kill the players or be "realistic". No, it just needs to be interesting, and not make the player feel like they're just facing a giant sack of hitpoints with (or without) the ability to slaughter them in seconds if something goes wrong.

66 was crippling. You're thinking of 100.

I am a nerd.

(I missed this post)

This would work great against Crey, who typically start out very scattered. If more groups spawned this way, I think AoE KB would be less reviled.

You didn't even have to say, I already knew you would do that.

If you're implying that they're all dead before SW recharges, then I'd rephrase this as "I never get to hit the same mob with SW twice."

Also, it means we're not playing the game the same way. I'd raise the difficulty if my team's spawns were dying in under 8 seconds. I understand then why you prefer the KB-- if you want to kill spawns that fast, then the KB is better for alpha mitigation.

I'm not talking about the initial positioning. I'm talking about later uses of the power on the same spawn. If you knock them one way out in the open, you're probably going to want to knock them the other way afterwards.

All cones require slight positioning, yes. But because of the KB, you often need to move more than slightly to aim them into a corner or keep them from getting within aggro range of another spawn. I'm not saying that the repositioning is a big deal, just that it's something you would deal with less if it did KD.

This is a good point. I personally don't think it makes up the difference in being able to knock everyone down as soon as the power comes up under any and all circumstances without having to reposition to prevent scatter or alerting other spawns, but it's a good point nonetheless.

Just FYI: my opinions on the detriments of AoE KB are almost exclusively team-related. You primarily solo, so I have no question that the KB has very little negative impact on you.

Also, I totally appreciate that you simply like seeing your foes knocked back. I only argue against those who would claim that the KB is better overall, performance wise, than KD.

I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong if walls work for other people. Since KB knocks them in a straight line from the user to the target, I only see it scattering them further, not grouping them up. Maybe against a wall it won't scatter them as much, but I've seen them slide to the side after hitting it and colliding against each other.

There are lots of spawns that exist in the middle of big open rooms, or on walkways, in which there is no corner. There are also the groups of spawns that, if you KB the group backwards, would result in aggroing a new spawn if melee closes on the group after the KB, with the alternative being to jump between spawns and KB them the other way, which aggros the group anyway since you're standing there between them.

I'm not talking about outdoor missions exclusively, though their frequency does increase dramatically after 40.

Knocking them into corners is awesome, but the situation doesn't present itself that often. I am confident in saying this particularly because I also have a Grav controller, and if corners were even in a 80' range without a spawn being between your spawn and said corner that often, I'd be able to use Wormhole far more. There's a power I'd kill to have KD instead of KB on. Nothing like a Controller that can only use their secondary mitigation under certain circumstances without pissing off the team.

Here's a question that would explain our different experiences: do you pull/herd groups near corners so you can use them?

So, would you say you use Shockwave as frequently as you would Fire Breath or Throw Spines? How often is that, once or twice a spawn? Again, do you tend to pull/herd mobs near corners?

If half the team has it, of course it's not going to be an issue. They all want to use it too, and it has a huge area of effect, so they're not going to mind the scatter!

Note that I'm not pushing for Shockwave to get KB anymore. I'm just interested in understanding the perspective of those that actually prefer the KB over KD. Because I see the advantages to KD (being able to use it from any angle, as often as you like) dramatically outweighing the advantages to KB (pushing them into a corner to increase the number of foes hit by small AoEs), unless you always pull or herd to corners.

I asked Castle about this when Inventions were introduced. He said he'd check to see if it was possible, but he didn't know if it was. I never heard anything else, so I'd assume it's not.

Because of the varying magnitudes on KB powers, you'd probably have to have an enhancement that set the KB value instead of just reducing it by some percentage. And that may not be possible.