Luminara

He doesn't. Last sentence in the second-to-last paragraph in the post linked below. He's just here for the same reason someone would go to a French restaurant every day and complain about the lack of tacos on the menu, then leave without ordering anything. As for blocking, dodging, pausing to chat with the Pointer Sisters, whatever, it's a console mechanic, designed and used as a means of providing developer-controlled response to enemy attacks which have also been specifically designed with blocking as the intended response. It's unsuitable in computer gaming in general, as even the most basic keyboards offer an order of magnitude more user input than a handheld controller. It's even less suitable, as others have pointed out, in online gaming, due to latency. And as has also been mentioned, that suitability declines yet further when the combat system allows 16 foes to attack, not simultaneously, but according to class scripts and power availability, resulting in rapid-fire attacks with no timing or order imposed. And here, in our game, a block mechanic would necessitate reworking, if not outright removing, Defense buffs, Resistance buffs, ToHit debuffs, Damage debuffs, all status effects, range and all forms of healing, as well as significantly reducing spawn sizes and redesigning critter AI in order for the mechanic to have any value or utility, which drops the suitability to something on par with "refrigerator at the North Pole". Blocking is a limited mechanic, designed for limited systems, used as a workaround to dealing with limited input options, and of all of the potential complaints about Co*'s combat system, not having to sit through long enemy animations (long by necessity, to act as tells so the player knows when to block) and slowly fighting one opponent at a time would definitely not be on the list. Any list. Fewer limitations and faster, less repetitive combat is always better, from player perspective and for the longevity of a game. But for people who can't function with a superior combat system, there are always console games with carefully controlled combat situations which can be learned by rote (or watching a video) and which offer the satisfaction of referring to oneself as a master twitch gamer because one managed to press a button after 4-5 seconds of tells.

Confuse, Portal Corp courtyard, Possessed Scientists with KB attacks... Looks like you're homing in on something. Test some spawns of critters without KB attacks.

There's an enormous difference between Gen X culture and millennial culture. We both grew up with Internet access and social media platforms. The change wasn't numerical, though, it was in the trend toward (arguably fascist) control of how we're permitted to express ourselves. Gen X culture was blunt and direct, flame wars were the norm and we didn't have moderators stepping in to slap our wrists and tell us to behave. Our online experience reflected our real world experience, in that it was frank and sometimes unpleasant, but like real life, we dealt with it. Millennial culture is very different. It's controlled, processed and sanitized. Gen X was responsible for that evolution. The people who began moderating chat rooms and forums were Gen X. The people who decided there should be behavioral norms and rules for interaction were Gen X. The people who created millennial culture were Gen X. So when I express dissatisfaction with the nature of online communication in the millennial era, it's not an accusation of fault on the part of millennials, it's just what I said, a dislike of the culture that has evolved. It's dishonest, and it does more harm than good. And if I were pointing a finger at people, rather than societal behavior, it wouldn't be millennials, it would be Gen X, my generation. Now get off of my lawn.

I didn't "blame millennials". I said millennial culture, that being the current societal norm. There is a difference.

Ah, millennial culture. Everything is offensive, no-one should contradict anyone, the feelings of delicate little snowflakes are more important than truth or reality, and temper tantrums are mandatory. People fly into a rage, or incoherent sobbing, at the drop of a hat these days. That doesn't mean they should be coddled, or confrontation avoided. On the contrary, they should be corrected, with a sledgehammer if necessary. Being wrong isn't the end of the world, and they'll either figure that out (eventually), or behave like twatnozzles until no-one's listening any more. Correct more, worry less.

I understand the sequence. Your posts have been concise. It's not stacked Resistance debuffs. What Incarnate abilities do you have? What is your tray arrangement for all of your primary and secondary powers? Where is your pet when this occurs and what is it doing? How is the pet slotted? Do you have any procs in other powers, which could potentially cause the issue, or sets with +KB mag as a set bonus? What buffs are active on you when it occurs (including things like Day Job and P2W temp powers)? Have you double-checked the enhancements in your powers to be certain a proc didn't wiggle in accidentally (i've slotted a proc unintentionally more than once and had to waste a respec to fix it)? Each variable isolated narrows the search for the cause.

I'd forgotten about that. Thank you. A bug could've been introduced in that change, but if there was an unintended and unanticipated interaction between K* and -Res, there should be reports all over the forums, give the popularity and wide availability of -Res, and the increased of acceptance of KB due to the KB-KD proc. The vector change shouldn't have altered OSA's KD in any way, since OilSlickOil's KD was already radial from itself, being a PBAoE. None of the other PBAoE K* powers are causing KB, apparently, and there are more than enough -Res powers and procs for it to have been noticed and reported by multiple other people. There's just no chatter indicating this. @Redlynne's speculation is interesting, but the conclusion erroneous, since OSA is always first in the attack sequence, the reverse order of what she suggests might cause an increase in K* mag. If -Res increased K* mag when it was applied after the K*, it should also be much more prevelant and easily reproducible by anyone with -Res and K*. And, again, there aren't any other reports of that. And DA can't self-stack on the initial usage, and only self-stacks for 0.25s every subsequent 5s, so it wouldn't be capable of causing increased K* mag until 5s after the fact. @roleki's observations point to OilSlickTarget, not DA, because it only occurs when OST is present, but that's not actually possible. OST only has one critter-interactive ability, a -100 Threat reduction. No attacks, no K*, and the only -Res it applies is to itself. The only interaction between OST and DA is -Res, and we know that neither -Res on a target with +Res, nor stacked -Res (both would apply to OST), cause K*. There just isn't anything there to cause or increase the mag of K*. Unless the HC team have been toying with Threat reduction code. The increased frequency of occurence with Death Mages is suggestive. Kamikaze is Interruptible... but doesn't cause K*, as far as I can tell, and wouldn't be used at the beginning of a fight, or send the critter using it flying. No information is available (to me) on whether or not Death Mages are susceptible to K*, or have a power which provides status effect protection and can be Interrupted. That's something that can be tested, if anyone's interested. I believe there's something else going on. Another player in the background using a K* power, an overlooked proc, an Incarnate ability which increases status effects/K*, or use of a second K* power unintentionally (which would definitely be all but imperceptible in OSA's graphics). Those are the possibilities which seem most likely.

Disruption Arrow does occasionally cause Interrupt on Interrupt susceptible foes, but there is no interaction between -Resistance and K*. There's no code for it, no tables, no references to cross, so if it is bugged, it's not at that end. If the critters you're fighting have KB protection applied from a power which can be Interrupted, that would cause KD to scale up to KB, but if that were the case, OSA's KD would have already Interrupted them and the behavior would be reproducible without DA. There haven't been any changes in Resistance, -Resistance or TA, and to the best of my knowledge, the only KB change has been the addition of the KB - KD proc, so there's little to investigate on that front. Which leaves third party asshattery, Incarnate abilities and procs as the most likely culprits. You said you have no KB proc in OSA, and I don't recall any existing for DA. That narrows it down to the former two, either someone using a KD or KB power to screw with you, or Incarnate abilities. Do any of your Incarnate abilities enhance KB? Or... do you happen to have Sleet or Freezing Rain next to DA on your tray, or in a tray slot above or below your primarily used tray?

Yeah... too fast for the damage output indicated in this thread. Reduced scale values wouldn't be unjustified.

What are the activation times on TW powers?

There was no insult intended, Bill, and I apologize if you inferred it as such.

You didn't say TW should be balanced in a certain way. You said the game should be balanced in a certain way. The game. As you're not playing TW exclusively, indicated in the same post, and used a non-TW example to drive your point home, you clearly weren't referring to TW when you said the game shouldn't be balanced around SOs. And you're continuing to argue the case of the game, not TW, but the game not being balanced around SOs, which further indicates that the post in question was not about TW. I've never considered you to be someone lacking in maturity, so why not stop digging this hole in an attempt to save face and move on, rather than waste both of our time? Both. The game was balanced around SO schedule values from the outset. Every AT modifier, every power scale value, it was all built around the concept of allowing players to slot enhancements. Enhancements which had set, specific values which varied only slightly by level differentiation. The players disregarded developer expectations and preconceptions regarding slotting and forced the developers to devise and implement a limitation to enforce balance. Consider, they could've reduced every scale value for every effect by one third and accomplished exactly the same goal as they did with ED, saving themselves the time and effort of writing the code for ED. They could've saved even more time and effort by modifying AT scales, as there are far fewer ATs than powers. Instead, they wrote new code to enforce the balance. They did it that way because those SO schedule values, 33%, 20%, et cetera, are the fulcrum point of all of the math involved in enhanceable effects. Both pre-ED and post-ED balance was always centered on SO schedule values, because that was how the equations were implemented. The math, Bill, is what matters. Not the availability of anything else, but the math beneath all of it. And that math relies on SO schedule values. Incarnate powers were intended to move beyond the existing boundaries. They're god mode. The developers explicitly said that. They were balanced for different content than the standard 1-50 game, they have their own limitations and balance point, and the don't obviate SO balance. You can't progress through any content using Incarnate powers exclusively, you still have to use primary/secondary/pool/*PP powers, and those powers still have to be enhanced. The SO schedule values are still relevant and necessary for balance, with or without Incarnates. The formulae and equations underpinning the entire game are where my belief is grounded. That's the reality here. You can look at the math yourself and see it. And arguing with the math is akin to shouting at the sea to stop the tide from coming in. You wanting the math to be different isn't going to change it. You having a different perspective of what entails balance isn't going to change that, either. It just doesn't work that way.

Your post, the entirety of which I quoted, was not addressing a powerset, or it's performance, it was addressing the game in general and SOs as the balance point. So if it doesn't matter, why did you initiate the discussion? And why are you continuing it? The math behind powers, ATs, every effect, is. And the game is balanced around the math. Not liking, understanding or being aware of the math doesn't alter it, or the balance, in any way. Also, could you please clarify how you could be logged into a level 23 character with 19 set IOs and the rest level 25 IOs when you, per your own statement, never slot anything until level 32. I'm certain I'm not the only one confused by the discrepancy. Math problem?

Acquisition and the ease or difficulty thereof isn't the balance point. The numbers are the balance point. So what is your minimum number? What is the breakpoint which determines whether a character can succeed or fail? Are set bonuses required? With ED still in place, does it make sense, at all, to rebalance any portion of the game around IO enhancement values without accounting for set bonuses? If you're accounting for set bonuses, which ones and what values will you designate as the minimum, and what is your explanation to players for requiring specific minimum set bonus values in order to progress? Have you accounted for the effect of this on the market, or the criticism regarding perceived "elitist" content and requirements?

The game is balanced around the enhancement values SOs provide. SOs are why a power may have a scalar value of 1, or an AT a melee scale value of 0.65. SOs are the baseline. If you change the baseline, you have to change everything else. And if you change the baseline to IOs, you also have to recode the engine to compensate for the much wider variation of enhancement values. IOs increase enhanced percentage as level increases. IOs enhance up to 4 attributes, and collectively enhance a greater percentage than single-attribute enhancements of any variety. Any attempt to use IOs as a baseline will have poor results. Regardless of which IO level you determine to be optimal, once scalars are modified accordingly, you're going to have a lot of people either struggling to complete basic +0 content, or a lot of people blitzing end-game team and league content solo, at max difficulty. There's simply too much variation in IO values. As stated in the previous paragraph, the only way to make IOs work as a baseline is to recode the engine to account for the variability. So, whether you use SOs or not, or the fact that there are better or worse enhancements available, is what is irrelevant. The balance point isn't your play style or preferences, it's the fixed reference value provided by SOs. That's never going to change, unless you're volunteering to rewrite part of the engine and rebalance everything in a way which works with highly variable IO values... in which case, I applaud your initiative, admire your determination, wish you nothing but success and eagerly await the result. Off you pop.

1 - Restrict Hero and Villain alignments to 35+. Everyone begins as a Vigilante or Rogue. 2 - Remove Hero and Villain flags on all contacts. Everyone has equal access to all content. 3 - Move some contacts to level-appropriate maps on "the other side". Everyone has a reason to visit both sides. The engine makes extensive use of flags and pointers to data tables, so these changes should be possible without much, if any, code rewriting. It would be thematically appropriate to have contacts for both sides on both sides, it would encourage players to explore both types of content since they could more freely access all of it, and it would improve teaming options. Obviously, more villainous content would be necessary, but that could be accomplished by altering contact and mission text on some hero content. For example, rather than "Stop the bank robbery!", the text could simply say "Investigate the bank alarm." The motivation can be left to the player's imagination (perhaps he/she is protecting a bank which launders his/her money, or robbing the bank him/herself, or encounters a hated rival and stops the robbery out of spite). The same approach can be applied to existing red side content, changing or removing references to motivation so players no longer have a sense of being hired help. Once a player reaches APPs/PPPs, he/she can choose to go full Hero or Villain, or continue forward as a Vigilante or Rogue (and leave the paper/radio missions as they are so the option to switch remains). That would be my preferred solution. Tear down the walls which existed solely for the purpose of selling two copies of the game to each player. It's one game. Make it work as such.

Death by tea cup, disappearing pencil, Clippy... uh oh, I went too far, didn't I...

It would be more amazing if all of the sound effects were changed to exclamations from the Scooby Doo cartoon. "Jeepers!" "Zoinks!" "Raggy, relp!" Yeah. I'd play that like a fiddle at a hoedown.

BAB posted about that once. He said each powerset had to be animated individually for each character model (small, normal, huge), and each gender. And every one of those animations had to be adapted for the various movement methods (flight, running, jumping and teleporting). Brawl was animated separately for every power, model, gender and movement mode, as well. He didn't say anything about the origin powers, but we can deduce that he copied every Brawl animation and replaced the punch/kick (which uses Kick's animation (Fighting pool)) with the origin power animation, based on the behavior. So one powerset would require more than 350 animations, as he explained it, just to be playable. Most likely, he made the basic powerset animations on a single model and gender, then copied them to different models and genders and tweaked where necessary (fixing stances, adjusting for clipping, etc) to save time and effort. The movement modes, Brawl and the origin powers were probably done the same way. As for why some powers force the weapon model to be stowed, any power which is broadly accessible would require thousands of animations to be usable for all weapon-wielding characters without putting away the weapon. It's just too much work, and it's worth noting that at the time when more weapon powersets were being added, Paragon was understaffed. BAB could either "fix" all of the temp powers, veteran powers, pool powers and whatever else that didn't allow a weapon animation to remain present (QoL issue), or he could fix bugs and make new powers/powersets. The latter choice was wiser.

From an engineering perspective, the outflow shafts, and therefore the turbines, could be situated at any location which provides sufficient force, such as an island in the middle of the reservoir. You're building a dam anyway, though, so it's least expensive to place both right there, and it provides better long-term maintenance and repair options. But if you've got superhero muscle and people with the intellect to surf alternate realities, real world considerations like physics and budget can be ignored.

Needs more Karl Urban.

Possibly. BAB was laid off 18 months before Staff Fighting was released. It's unlikely that he worked on it all, given the time frame. The design elements and approach, therefore, would've been determined by his replacement, and whether that person followed the existing standard (synchronous animation/activation times) is something I neither know nor can test.

That's how it should work, if the design philosophy set down by BAB was followed. He normalized the animation and activation times of almost all existing weapon-based powers in Issue 11 (meaning, manually went through each animation, checked it against the power's activation time and trimmed frames or removed the draw animation where necessary so the two times were the same), and his intent was for all new weapon-based powers to use the same time for animation and activation from that point onward.

Within very, very carefully considered limitations. Laws which prohibit being snide, sassy or passive-aggressively annoying have only been applied in police state societies, such as the USSR during Stalin's control, or China now. Unjust and oppressive laws which do not exist in any free and democratic nation. That's what you're proposing. Worse, actually, that's what you're implying that we need more of, because that dystopian hell of thought police is already entrenched in modern online life. We already have to cautiously moderate our words, phrasing and "tone" to avoid provoking complete strangers, lest we bring the wrath of moderators down on ourselves. And while we don't have to fear being dragged off to "re-education camps", or executed (yes, it has happened, and continues to happen), the basic concept of behavioral control and conformity through thought police intervention and action is applied in online interaction now. And you suggest more moderation, more thought police control, to exacerbate that. More censorship. More temporary and permanent bans. Punishment for sarcasm, punitive measures for passive-aggressiveness, penalties for contrariness. Does it end before we're all copying and pasting moderator-supplied and approved responses to one another? As it's already influencing real life, creating 30+ year old adults with the emotional fortitude of kindergartners who can't function in daily life without nanny cops to defend them from harsh words, criticism or sarcasm, how far does it go before even free nations are overburdened with thought police laws and measures, with broad, sweeping definitions of what is deemed "offensive" or "passive-aggressive" designed to be applicable in such a manner as to ensure that no-one ever suffers from the emotional equivalent of a paper cut? Liberty and freedom of expression are not concepts which can coexist with police states, even if those police states are virtual. And one person's right not to be offended, if such a right even exists, or should exist, should not impose an unjustly applied lack of rights on another person based on a completely subjective definition of offense. A line has to exist somewhere, yes, but that line should exist within the framework of freedom, not as a limitation thereof. Death threats, racial slurs, posting personal information like a real name and address, yes, moderate the hell out of that kind of behavior. But infringing on the rights of assholes to be assholes, because someone might be offended or "triggered"? Frankly, even though it means I have to deal with others being assholes to me occasionally, I'd rather watch it all burn to the fucking ground than lose even more freedom and liberty online. To the fucking ground.