rsclark

This isn't an opinion of "what tastes better cake or pie". This is about looking at two things and seeing which one better matches a third. It's not opinion to say a cake is closer to a cookie than a cheetah is.

I wasn't aware we were talking about what anyone liked. I thought it was about whether or not the game content creates the feel of comics. That's what the topic was in the post I responded to.

Now, it may be possible to make content that gives a mass battle and at the same time presents the story to each member that they are the protagonist hero, but it's not going to be easy, because comics aren't like that. Stories in general are not like that.

There are three pronunciations listed, and I assume the rhyme was with ˈli-tər-lē\.

Of course, I want to go to wherever they speak that dialect and start punching people in the head, but for them, it does seem to rhyme. But, then, people who pronounce "pen" and "pin" the same piss me off, so you can understand how I feel about them leaving out a ******* vowel.

Trading improves nothing. It creates a secondary economy. The comparison to the collector problem is to illustrate how long the odds actually are to people who get nauseous when they look at big numbers. Trading does not change the actual probabilities involved in getting the pack by gambling.

Also, I'd guess a 40X difference between the low and high priced parts, not a 3X. It's a tad different.

You'd be wrong.

I have certainly seen comics where large groups of heroes fight. If the battles are important, you get smaller groups accomplishing one aspect while the rest do something else. That is much better modeled by a group version of the clone arc - where you are playing a small, but necessary part, but are kept informed of the part your clone is playing.

I have also seen a bunch of heroes gang up on Galactus, but the only time that is ever successful is in Marvel Zombies. Even then, it follows the more common plot of "heros fight big bad, heroes lose, smaller group of specialized heroes do something important that changes the battle significantly." Again, this is something better handled by the normal team based content.

The idea of supers throwing enough bodies at a problem to make it go away is something I have never seen in a comic or anywhere else, because it's ****** storytelling.

Don't throw 30 people into a bucket and expect them all to feel important?

On a 4 person team, i can be completely convinced that the group would fail without me - and I can also know that the other 3 people feel the same (ie that they are the important one). It's a good bet that none of us are correct, but it's the feeling that's important more than the reality.

On a 20 man team, nothing will produce that same feeling, because I can see that my actions are having no noticeable effect.

One of those is a good design for a game about superheros and the other isn't.

Please highlight a single word there which is proscriptive.

Just because you can't emulate it completely is no reason to make a hard left and floor it out of the general neighborhood at top speed.

Being on a trial not only imperfectly emulates the feel of a superhero, it goes more for the feel of 1984. The cutscene at the beginning should be in faux black-and-white, and a should have someone in a military suit match back in forth in front of the league forcing us to repeat over and over "As an individual, I am unimportant. My significance is nothing in the face of the collective." She could even have the Frau Farbissina accent and be swinging her riding crop while we repeated the deprotagonization mantra.

Right up to the moment you give your pets names.

And, really, that's a kind of balance that hurts the set. The need to constantly renew multiple debuffs to maintain the same effects you get from other sets while activating fewer powers isn't a good thing.

When the bugs go live after being reported, it's obvious they did neither.

It's not as noticeable when they have 6 months between releasing piles of crap to clean up the mess they made. Now that they weekly take a dump in my computer, I notice more.

It means you have to pay more attention to party makeup in fulfilling certain roles - something this game has rightly avoided as much as possible in the past.

I've got a word to replace "literally" in that sentence. "". That's it. Just stick in "" and the meaning does not change at all. "I've been to hell and back today" is a perfectly fine sentence with an easy to understand meaning.

Well, it would of been, but their still people who protect it.
/illiteracy

And you do that on an Electric Melee character how, exactly?

Informing? Sure. If (<---important word - don't skip it) a woman has a desire to please him, then yes, he has informed them how to do so.

But that is a long stretch from him making demands or even requests that they do so.

Since the MM incarnate level buff and making the single target buffs into group buffs, BAF is not terribly bad on a MM.

Now, you couldn't pay me to ever run a LAM again.

They may drop more often, but what they don't do is drop for the last 15 levels before you reach 50.

And you need 5 times as many of them. The only think that makes those faster is the freebie at the end that you get to choose.

No, that actually didn't happen. You're confused.

Most everyone I would bother talking to in real life? Many people on any game theory board?

Even if someone has not heard of it, they can look it up on wikipedia in 9 seconds and get a good grasp of the idea.

Getting a collection of X from a random sample has lower odds that most people will estimate. This is caused by the fact that the chance of getting the last missing piece is much lower than the chance of getting the first few pieces. Those basic ideas are just as applicable here as in a strictly defined coupon collector.

Even more to the point, you can limit the problem to a strict collector problem and generate an upper bound on the probability. In other words, you can create a hypothetical system that follows the exact problem and show how bad the odds are, then you can show that all the variances only make the odds worse.

No, really, do what I just said. Imagine you want to collect 3 sets for 3 different ATs. Now imagine that the system only had those 3 sets in the pool and nothing else. Work out those odds - it is exactly the collector problem. Everyone here can do it. Then realize that none of the changes that make this hypothetical different than the real system will make the real system have better odds than that. That represents an upper bound on reality.

If the best case it horrible, what does that say about the average and worst cases?

This is flat out not true depending on your definition of "desirable". It seems very likely that it will be able to buy 5 packs and get nothing desirable.

Use that $5 and buy a dictionary.

It takes one ITF to get a T1 alpha if you're doing one of the recipes that uses that particular component or you happen to have the Vangard merits laying around. What time wasting TFs are you doing where you need to do 3 to get a T1 alpha?
But then you've done 3-4 BAFs, which is its own downside.