Oedipus_Tex

Anything.

/Storm is the classic combo for explosive power.

/TA makes you two Controllers in one, with a hefty dose of debuff.

/Sonic gives you mezz protection, a very strong pet, and added kill speed.

/Thermal makes your pet an unstoppable monster and makes you a healer/buffer to boot.

/Empathy makes you a better support partner than a lot of Empath Defenders because you can mitigate damage, too.

/Force Field makes your pet even tougher and lets you hide inside Personal Force Field while your pet demolishes enemies.

/Kinetics makes your party love you and works great with all the -Defense in Earth.

[ QUOTE ]
Twixt's methods are being looked at but that does not discount the points/goals of the paper and it is pretty clear (looks at some in the community) that Twixts obsevations were correct.

I'm loving this community of angels-who-do-no-wrong and would rather try to burn someone at the stake then admit the above to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's examine what the professor's actual points were in order to understand the community's reaction to them.

1 - That there are such things as "social rules" and "game rules."
2 - That "game rules" are determinable by reading in game descriptions, the EULA, examining software mechanics, and analyzing the responses of game moderators (but without consulting the actual game developers).
3 - That he understood and played by the "game rules" and no one else did.
4 - That when he tried to play purely by the "game rules" (as he had interpreted them) he was run off, on account of "social rules."
5 - That this illustrates that everyone except him was playing by inflexible "social rules" that "inhibit gameplay."
6 - That players have now seduced developers into changing the "game rules" to codify their "social rules."
7 - That game developers have fallen trap to this because they have "abdicated their responsibility to design a game."
8 - That this heralds the "death of games" in general .

While I might be persuaded to believe point 1, the slope leading from 1 to 8 becomes increasingly slippery.

The first and most obvious objection to the professor's interpretation is to his assumption that he was able to discern and play by a set of "game rules." The question is, why are these "game rules" so apparent to him but so difficult for others to interpret or follow? While the professor states that it is the interference of "inflexible" social rules that prevent others from playing as he did, he neglects the possibility that he was not playing by "game rules" at all, but by a set of "social rules" he enacted himself. In fact, everything the professor states about the inflexibility of "social rules" can easily be applied to his playstyle, down to his rigidness and need to carry conflict beyond the walls of the game world.

The next objection to the professor's methods involves his technique. In his essay and media interview, he is quick to point out where other players taunted him, but leaves out descriptions of the interactions that led to it. For example, he cites individuals who believed he might have autism or Asperger's syndrome and says that they must have reached that conclusion because of how rigidly he followed the "game rules." But an analysis that includes all of the facts immediately leads to the more likely answer: the professor manner of speech and habit of repeating himself in public broadcasts and posting recaps in the message boards closely resembled behavior that a lay person would associate with an actual mental condition. Logs of the professor's communications with players are fatal to his hypothesis that it was his adherence to "game rules" alone that brought about events.

Most frustrating of all, the professor has blamed players for enacting "social rules" and game developers for permitting them, but has assigned no blame to himself in any of the situations that developed. In every communication he asserts, to steal a quote from the person I cited above, that he is an "angel-who-do[es]-no-wrong." He is insistent that he obeyed the game rules and shocked--shocked!--that others do not share this interpretation despite an outpouring of criticism across the web. He asserts that the "game rules" are easy to interpret as the rules of chess when they clearly are not--according to him, even the game developers have lost sight of them! He interprets any objection to his conclusion as yet more players who are enacting the brute justice "social rules." In his mind, it is everyone else who is victim to 'social rules." Luckily he has a doctorate and can see through it.

Since I'm in a quoting mood, I'll share one of my favorite quotes from Richard A. Bartle, author of Designing Virtual Worlds. While I don't agree with everything Bartle has to say about virtual worlds, this segment of the chapter "It's Not a Game, It's a..." has always resounded with me.

(this quote is from pp 474-475 of the paperback edition copyrighted in 2004 by New Riders Publishing)

[ QUOTE ]

Virtual worlds are places. Remember that, and many design issues cease to be issues at all. People go to places, do things there, and then they go home.

Virtual worlds are not simulations, because they don't simulate anything. They approximate aspects of reality--enough for the purposes of immersion--but that's all.

Virtual worlds are not services. Yes, providing access to them is a service of importance--they can't exist otherwise. However, that doesn't mean the virtual worlds themselves are services. Restaurants provide a service, but the food they serve isn't a service.

Virtual worlds are not a medium. Well, let's put it this way: If they are, then so is the real world. A medium is a channel open for communication with a (large) number of individuals. Although most virtual worlds do have such channels within them, they are not intrinsically channels themselves. You can play in a virtual world without communicating with any of the other players.

Most certainly of all, virtual worlds are not games. Even the ones written to be games are not games. People can play games in them, sure, and they can be set up that end, but this merely makes them venues. The Pasadena Rose Bowl is a stadium, not a game.

Virtual worlds are places. They may simulate abstractions of reality; they may operate as a service; creating them may be an art; people may visit them to play games. Ultimately though, they're just a set of locations. Places.


[/ QUOTE ]


The professor's problem is that he expected a game and got a place.

According to his own logs he was flaming in the extreme. Here are some logs that he left out of his paper that have been posted on his blog.

[ QUOTE ]

02514: 03-26-2008 20:51:24 [Broadcast]Twixt: well, i would kill you all and win the zone but too many hero farmers
02515: 03-26-2008 20:51:30 [Broadcast]Twixt: hero slimeball lowlife farmers
02518: 03-26-2008 20:51:34 [Broadcast]Twixt: as usuall, vills np
02519: 03-26-2008 20:51:43 [Broadcast]Twixt: but hero lowlife slimeball farmers ruin the zone
02520: 03-26-2008 20:51:46 [Broadcast]Twixt: wat a pity
02530: 03-26-2008 20:52:31 [Broadcast]Twixt: no, little lowlife slimeball farmer boy, U ruin it
02534: 03-26-2008 20:52:48 [Broadcast]Twixt: its trivial to hog the hvys and farm the zone
02535: 03-26-2008 20:52:57 [Broadcast]Twixt: any can do it, any can cheat
02537: 03-26-2008 20:53:04 [Broadcast]Twixt: read the rulez, play the game
02539: 03-26-2008 20:53:10 [Broadcast]Twixt: otherwise, who the f cares
02541: 03-26-2008 20:53:36 [Broadcast]Twixt: congrats, another night of farmer bois
02542: 03-26-2008 20:53:43 [Broadcast]Twixt: wallow in it, little farmer bois
02543: 03-26-2008 20:53:46 [Broadcast]Twixt: you the mans
02879: 03-26-2008 21:18:13 [Broadcast]Twixt: faraq lowlife slimeball farmer, check
02890: 03-26-2008 21:19:35 [Broadcast]Twixt: im ignorning your little slimeball lowlife farmer [censored], gl, miserable cheater pos
03-26-2008 21:19:53 ka faraq gatri is now ignored


[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]

02934: 03-26-2008 21:28:17 [Broadcast]Twixt: its all about phase
02935: 03-26-2008 21:28:20 [Broadcast]Twixt: nothing but phase
02936: 03-26-2008 21:28:27 [Broadcast]Twixt: thats it basically
02937: 03-26-2008 21:28:29 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
02938: 03-26-2008 21:28:34 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
02954: 03-26-2008 21:29:56 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
02955: 03-26-2008 21:30:00 [Broadcast]Twixt: thats yoru choice
02956: 03-26-2008 21:30:03 [Broadcast]Twixt: make your choice
02957: 03-26-2008 21:30:08 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
02985: 03-26-2008 21:32:26 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
02987: 03-26-2008 21:32:30 [Broadcast]Twixt: make your choice
03-26-2008 21:33:33 You have defeated LongDingus
03002: 03-26-2008 21:33:40 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
03004: 03-26-2008 21:33:43 [Broadcast]Twixt: your choice
03-26-2008 21:34:20 Artic Prodigy has defeated Lu Bu.
03-26-2008 21:34:32 Stellar Moon has defeated Mr Invincible
03016: 03-26-2008 21:34:41 [Broadcast]Twixt: whos gonna phase, whos gonna die
03-26-2008 21:34:50 Gen. PinHead has defeated Arachnos Heavy Blaster
03-26-2008 21:35:44 You have defeated Sue Peerior
03031: 03-26-2008 21:35:55 [Broadcast]Twixt: choice number one is phase
03034: 03-26-2008 21:36:00 [Broadcast]Twixt: choice number two is die


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is hyperbole and it's missplaced. There is no TP Foe in Chess.

What you quoted is actually where he makes a valid point. Which is that people whine even when tactics are used which are within the game rules, but often against social rules. This is compounded by the fact that it is entirely consensual for them to be there (they voluntarily chose to enter a PvP zone).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that anyone who chooses to enter a PvP zone should expect the possibility of attack, but that isn't my problem with the professor's assumptions. He asserts that "win at all costs" is a game rule, when in fact it is a social rule. There is nothing in the game rules that requires players to attack each other without regard and there are strategic reasons not to do so. The zone makes it possible to attack other players, but doesn't penalize the player if they chose not to.

As a matter of strategy, if attacking your opponents with powers they think are "cheap" draws so much ire out of them (and your own allies) that they band together against you and render you less effective, then your "winning" strategy has failed. Talk of "social rules" isn't necessary when the much simpler explanation is that you blew your cover and got eliminated.

The professor's larger assumption that players should be happy with all existing game mechanics is perplexing. He himself voted with his feet when the new PvP mechanics came out because he thought the changes were "boneheaded" (his words). By his own argument, if the devs were now to change PvP in a way that pleased him, they would be degrading their game. His position is truly as absurd as Teleport Foe existing in chess.

- Gravity Control.

- Sonic Resonance.

- Psi Blast on a Blaster.

- Energy Blast on a Defender.

- Energy Melee.

Are we still allowed to cite quotes from the study's author? I hope so, because he's drawn some conclusions that are pretty... intriguing. Moderators, if this is stepping over the line, feel free to shoot me down (have to respect the "game rules"--I should warn you though that as a player it is I who own the much more authoritarian "social rules" and for the good of all gaming you shouldn't trust me.)


[ QUOTE ]
Game rules are prohibitive and paradoxical; social rules – most particularly the ones I observed in CoH — are authoritarian and static, inhibiting game play. With social rules in effect, the CoH game becomes less a game and more a society. There is less play and more politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

It turns out we players are in complete control. Our opinions are authoritarian and static, which means we are all in complete agreement about the AE, farming, archetype balance, "aura rawking," content difficulty and of course PvP.


[ QUOTE ]
One thing that makes games — REAL games — work is that everyone is abiding by the same set of rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

As many of us have long suspected, this isn't a "real" game at all.


[ QUOTE ]
I was not so much shocked by my opponents being angry and as what they were angry about. If we were playing chess, and you got very angry that I moved my bishop — just moved my bishop, thats all — then I would be equally surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes me wonder what would happen if I cast Teleport Foe on that bishop.


[ QUOTE ]
At this point, Im not so much interested in user models or theoretical frameworks so much as just getting people to focus on the sort of oppressive social regime that exists in mmos, particularly when that oppression is directed at games and game rules. Twixt gets called a griefer and and ethical transgressor for playing a game — a consensual game with an explicit and obvious set of rules that he abides by to the letter!? Hard to fathom at some level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed.


[ QUOTE ]
Even more important is that, as I observed things, the fun/milieau rules were often actively opposed to the game rules. They were eating the game rules like some kind of ugly green mold. The point of this post is that game rules are important and need to be observed and, if necessary, protected. Unfortunately, the game rules seem to have few protectors and fun/milieu rules seem to have lots, who, based on the Twixt experience, like to pile on.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you imagine this line of inquiry read in Rorschach's voice, it's almost a persuasive movie-motive for throwing hot grease on someone.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, exploiters, like Fansy the Famous Bard, for instance, never die. They have a guaranteed win strategy. Twixt never had that. Twixt killed a lot of people, believe me, but then a lot of people killed Twixt too. I really don’t know where people get these ideas that Twixt was exploiting something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not from articles on nola.com.


[ QUOTE ]
I originally interpreted most of the responses to Twixt’s breaching play as a form of trash talk, common in many competitive sports. However, there were several incidents that forced a re-evaluation of the context and the seriousness of player reactions to Twixt. The first of these was the rather sudden and unexpected expulsion of Twixt from his Champion-based supergroup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is a repost, but I can't get enough of it. You know things are getting serious when you get kicked out of your supergroup!


[ QUOTE ]
Games are (were, maybe) a unique and important formal aesthetic category. Without games, we would be less. Inside CoH, we are less.

[/ QUOTE ]

DOOOM. With footnotes.


[ QUOTE ]
The CoH game designers – and other mmo designers — seem to have largely abdicated their responsibility to design a game in favor of providing a sandbox for players to use as they wish. This may be good for game designer jobs, their blog readers, and their pocketbooks, but it is not particularly good for their games. ...

...Most surprisingly of all (maybe only to me), game designers themselves seem no longer interested in their rules. They seem to focus increasingly less on game rules and increasingly more on game rulers. Rulers don’t like the game rules? No problem. Eliminate those rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

You heard it hear first. Positron and gang have lost interest in game rules. The worst part about it is they are giving the players stuff they want.


-- Who was the person writing that rebuttal? Sure you hope you respond to some of the professor's conclusions.

(Edited for readability.)

[ QUOTE ]
Change Vigilance to Determination.

Determination = The less endurance the defender has, the less his powers cost to use (similar to how Defiance used to work, ie. as Blaster health decreased, attacks did more damage).

Simple. It allows the Defender to have Endurance when the team needs him, and it increases damage output by allowing the Defender to attack longer, while maintaining damage output relative to other ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Numerically that works out the same as just reducing the endurance cost of all powers across the board.

What I've suggested in the past is that each Defender added to the team increases the effect of inspirations used by anyone. The first Defender would add a 10% buff, the second 8%, the third %6, and so on, up to a maximum 30% buff (or whatever number). When fighting solo the Defender would always have the base 10% buff.

Is it normal in social science disciplines to refer to yourself in the third person? I'm just curious because the essay and the website consistently use the character's name in the place of "I."

"Oedipus Tex" wrote this. Then "Oedipus Tex" hit Post.

[ QUOTE ]
It's players like you that provided the basis for Twixt's paper. Your above comment goes to prove you know nothing about PvP. If it were illegal TP Foe and Drones would have been removed by the Devs a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if droning is against the official rules. The fact is that by doing it Twixt shot himself in the foot because the people he did it to hated it.

He talks about his strategy for winning RV but ignores how his tactics drew so much attention to himself as a potential target that it sacrificed his ultimate goal. His own faction stopped teaming with him because of his behavior. If winning RV was his ultimate goal and doing so requires teamwork, then doing things to annoy the team are counterproductive to the end goal.

Also, I'm not an expert on PvP zone mechanics but as I understand it the "purpose" of the zone is sort of like a competitive version of the Rikti War Zone pylon mechanics. Which calls into question why you would attack people who aren't even attempting to capture the pill box. Certainly seems like a losing strategy to me.

A comparable situation would be someone joining a mission team and pulling mob after mob on top of the unprepared party, then complaining that no one should get annoyed because pulling enemies is "within the rules" and defeating enemies is the purpose of the game, as evidenced by the fact that the game allows it and no one has responded to /petitions.

The issue I and many others have with this "research" is the attempt to pass off an Internet fan site as a serious academic essay. Basically, this guy is a video game addict who wrote a paper about his hobby. Because it has footnotes and he has a title, it's supposed to be taken seriously.

At the very least Myers could have changed the names of the people he disparages. That he chose not to makes the paper come dangerously close to offline nerd rage. Angry about being rejected in a video game, he decided to take things to a whole new level by publishing an academic article embarrassing his enemies and consented to media interviews where he repeated the same. It is truly unreal that a university professor would complain about the ethics of players in an online video game and then go on to publish the names of their characters in a much broader public forum. Pot meet anvil.

In his essay, he claims he was within his rights to use droning as a method of dispatching enemies. He says that droning is okay because the developers never specifically stopped him. Then he goes on to complain that other players used game mechanics to get back at him. He was surprised that his super group dumped him. He was sad that other heroes alienated him. There are hints in the article that some heroes would allow villains to cast Confusion on them so they could dispatch him themselves. Yet all of these things were done using available game mechanics. For Meyers it's "within the rules" when he acted like a sociopath, ignoring social convention and obeying only the rules of physics. But when others respond in kind it is no longer "within the rules."

That Myers was threatened with physical violence sucks but is hardly the shocking conclusion he tries to make it. I don't think that in 2009 many of us are shocked to learn that "some people on the Internet are mean." Myers complains that some players took their harassment out of the game, then goes on to [/i]publish an essay and consent to interviews[/i] in a broad public forum. He goes on to claim that he isn't really a jerk, it was all in the name of science--but he knows for a fact his enemies were real!

Under the circumstances its possible they were researchers from a rival university conducting an experiment on a player they assumed to have a mental illness.

[BTW I am not responsible for the content of this message. Although I am a long time player of CoX, I actually have you all fooled. I am an adult learning instructor studying how people react to longwinded message board posts. The content of my essay, in which I will attribute quotes to your avatars in a most unflattering way, will be published in the next few months. By the way I am totally in my right to perform this study. I know so because the message boards allow me to type and my messages haven't been banned. Also, I am quitting the game because the developers are making changes to limit my ability to type and make messages bannable. You can contact me on my Twitter site where I will remind you you do not have my creditentials. Gotta go, the media is calling.]

Maybe it's because I spent some time as a game developer and customer support person for an MMO, but I fail to see anything epic or legendary about either Fansy or Twixt.

The old "low level character who can't be attacked" exploit is much older than Everquest. See also "verbal harrassment in sanctuary zones" and "looming over corpse of defeated player in order to steal loot for self." Related topics are "substituting object for something with similar graphics/name" (e.g. in a text-based world, dropping a "teleportation gate" outside of the "city gate" so that new players teleport to a zone filled with high level monsters) and "name flaming," in which a player creates an avatar with a similar look, name, and appearance to another player and intentionally provokes trouble.

Seriously, if you've seen one of these players you've seen them all. They vary in their modus operandi but one thing they all do is insist they are playing "within the rules." I wish I had a dollar for every person who told me to "show them in the rules where [x] isn't allowed" while I was placing them on 30 day lockout.

These players are also fond of claiming to have "developer support" and often speculate openly about the intended purpose of a power/location/vendor/object. Their argument is usually that because the game makes them capable of doing something, its permissible to do it. It will probably not surprise anyone here to learn that often developers don't anticipate the way everything they create will be used. Sometimes, upon realizing that game mechanics are not working as intended, changes are made to the game.

With Twixt specifically, his "academic" paper states that PvP zones were intended to be used a certain way because that's the way they were coded. I've never spoken to the developers of this game, but I have no doubt this elicits a giant eye roll.

Words fail me. Having also read the Twixt/Myers report, I feel like I've been teleported (heh) to the Twilight Zone. This isn't a scholarly paper, it's a thinly veiled PvP rant with footnotes. The "sad" case of Twixt indeed.

Did the author verify that the messages he collected from other players weren't all simply coming from the same small group of people playing multiple characters? No.

Did the author consult the creators of the game to determine what their goals were in establishing PvP mechanics? No.

Did the author explain that "griefing" tactics are as old as the Internet itself? No.

Did the author consider that "what the game code lets you do" is different from "what is intended you do with the game code"? No.

Did the author suggest that players hated being teleported into enemies because it truly WAS a cheap tactic? No.

What the author did do is publish a highly disparaging article that almost reads like a venegeful screed. I hope, for his sake, he at least changed the names of the characters he cites, many of whom are real, identifiable people who I'm sure have not consented to his work.

For those who don't want to read the actual paper, a few choice highlights from the paper are submitted below:

Droning, on the other hand, was....clearly an acceptable tactic as determined both by the game design and as confirmed by lack of moderator intervention on any petitioner’s behalf.

The inability of Twixt’s opponents to acknowledge his success in zone play was probably, on one hand, motivated by having entirely different, more socially oriented game goals.

At one point, in fact, toward the end of breaching play on the Freedom server, Twixt posted verbatim transcripts of the game’s online combat log as a confirming account of what had occurred during RV play. This post drew severe criticism – most harshly from those players listed in the log as defeated by Twixt; several denied their defeats outright, others attributed their defeats to more devious or pitiable causes (including a rather long and detailed post drawing parallels between Twixt’s behavior and Asperger’s syndrome.)

...there were several incidents that forced a re-evaluation of the context and the seriousness of player reactions to Twixt. The first of these was the rather sudden and unexpected expulsion of Twixt from his Champion-based supergroup.

Back when the AE first opened, I had to explain to a level 18 character how to exit the game.

Edit: Forgot to add that he asked me how to save his character and whether he got to keep his gear when he came back.

[ QUOTE ]
Ohhhh if this was on Virtue I was the 50 !! you were very polite and friendly when you exited the team merely stating that "it felt a little too easy " and excused yourself before the mission was done .

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it was you, I recognize the name. You were very polite yourself so I wasn't going to cause a huge scene. I was pretty amazed by how well your character performed solo and it was worth the mission just to see that. I do still think I got too much XP for doing nothing but dying but it wasn't all bad! Truly amazing build you have there.

In response to some other posts (not related to the quote above):

Again I don't have an ethical issue with farming per se, but I do think the rewards are out of wack. I don't think this leads, necessarily, to fewer people to team with, people not knowing how to make a build, or throwaway characters in general.

Rather, my issue is that having an option for overabundant XP leads to the abandonment of alternative strategies. It is sort of like creating a powerset with 8 interesting, fun attack powers that require practice and skill to use and then throwing in a single power that does auto-hit 1000 damage per shot on a half-second recharge. The existence of such a power eliminates the need to strategically use the other 8 powers in the set. Perversely, what results is a population players who slavishly use that single power, many of whom hate every minute of it. And no matter how outrageously overpowered the ability was, some players would insist they are entitled to use it because it is a matter of "playstyle," as if paying a subscription fee means they get everything they want. Some of them would even cancel their accounts if it changed. Others would cancel if it were not changed, for some of the reasons discussed here.

I think one thing a lot of people who oppose farming (me not included) and/or huge XP payouts (me included) mean to say but can't quite find the words for is this: our problem with mega-XP alternatives is that they also tempt us. Just like "farmers" we often want to seek out the highest possible XP rewards we can. Where we differ is on the what source of those rewards should be and how high they should go. Right now they go very high and the source of them runs counter to actual gameplay.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a little hysteresis built into the system, but SK'd characters outside SK range earn XP as if they were not SK'd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they were earning the XP they'd get if they weren't sidekicked, they wouldnt get XP at all, unless they were within 5 levels of the leader.

IMO one change that probably needs to be made is that side kicked characters earn no XP if they are outside the range of their mentor's ability to aid them. Not that this stops the problem entirely, but it at least means doorsitting is more limited. Of course this has no effect on the AE where the auto-50 SK happens.

There should also almost certainly be a much more severe XP curve for earning XP when you are more than 15 levels below the enemies being defeated.

[ QUOTE ]
The result you experienced is not exclusive to the AE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless there is some way for a single level 50 to SK 7 people under level 40 then it probably is.

One of my characters yesterday went from level 9 to 16 within the span of a single AE mission. Total time spent was around 30 minutes.

The clincher is that he was level pacted, so wasn't even getting full xp.

I'm not going to enter any value judgments here about farming, the morality of gaining fast levels, and so on. I just think that the XP system needs further review because as long as its possible to gain levels so quickly, the strategy of playing radio missions or contacts is pretty much moot. In particular, the ability to auto-SK in the AE seems broken.

As it is, I'm afraid I'm going to have to avoid using the AE in teams at all until something is done. The reason is that I'm afraid I'll accept an invite to a team, like this one, that appears to offer "too much" XP and then get in trouble for abuse. I didn't join the team with the idea that I'd be exiting the map in the double-digits, and only played the mission one time.

I should further note that nothing about this mission was particularly more "farm like" than any other mission. The levels came because a single level 50 character was able to solo the map without any assistance from the rest of the team, and my character gained levels from the sheer number of enemies defeated. There were no obvious exploits employed. The system is just handing out too much XP in certain situations.

[ QUOTE ]
...I wonder what the least played secondary is?

[/ QUOTE ]

On a Defender? I'd vote Energy Blast.

The Sonic debuff ring only really works out for some of Controller primaries. Mainly Ice, Earth, Fire, and Plant. It's ok on Illusion but the pet is often reluctant to enter melee. The Gravity pet has a knockback aura.

The thing is that /Sonic is so toggle heavy that the character can do little else. In the end game. Kinetics does a better job in many cases because it can restore endurance and access massive damage buffs. /Sonic is often left gasping for air, especially on a Fire or Ice that already has an endurance heavy toggle.

I was playing my Force Field/ Defender yesterday on a team that included a /Force Field Controller. We ran into an AV during the mission and things went nutty in large part because the /Force Field refused to use her shields. She didn't even have the big shield turned on until the final seconds of the fight even though I had spent over half the fight dead.

In total my character died 6 times during the 15 minutes it took to kill the AV.

I wasn't angry or anything. The player was perfectly polite. But it was definitely odd to watch the team melt in front of the AV and not have the /Force Fielder think "Maybe I should be using shields." There were a total of around 35 deaths spread among the 6 characters in that group.

It seems to be part of a trend of Force Fielders who don't shield. The last 4 Force Fielders that I've joined with either only used the shields at the beginning of the mission and never again, or didn't even have the shields (!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Some of them may not realize that shields stack with mine, or think that my shield alone caps people's defenses--which it does, but only as long as they are underneath my big bubble.

Sonic also has the bad luck to get a redundant anti-mezz power, a "knockback" aura power that can't be used on yourself, and a very situational intangibility power. All with no heal, and much weaker shields than Force Field. Sonic does offer extra damage, but it requires a teammate for the full effect. Plus, let's face it, Sonic is ugly, and as a concept doesn't fit easil with a lot of characters.

Once Thermal comes to Defenders that may be the last we ever see of Sonic.

The Ice pet does fine damage but dies in half the time of the Earth pet.

Basically having a pet is like having a sidekick. I'd compare the Ice and Plant pets to level 15-ish Dominator sidekicks with perma-Thermal shields on them. Fire would be like a bunch of low level (pre-armor and mezz protection) Scrappers. The Earth pet is like a level 30-ish tanker who has around 6 attacks and no Taunt.

I'd vote for Sonic. In my entire time in teamed with just one Sonic Defender, and perhaps 10 /Sonic Controllers.