Luminara

🍿

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. I like where your head is at. Unless you've removed it and surgically reattached it to one of your knees, in which case, I don't like where your head is at. Put it back. PUT. IT. BACK. It never is. But repurposing and modifying existing content is an excellent beginning, and easier than starting from scratch. We'll wait another week before shouting at you to do that. @Jimmy already showed us some "stuff". I've been traumatizing the forums with it. 😁

Sometimes it's the pursuit of the goal which makes it enjoyable. I like planning builds, experiencing their performance at different levels and milestones, and seeing how the whole thing comes together at the end. I suppose, technically, the goal for me, then, is exploring the potential of my planned builds, rather than reaching the final build stage, but that final stage is just as important. It's the purpose behind the build, that ultimate realization of what it can be and conclusive proof of a theory. I just happen to also take pleasure in the smaller improvements and changes which come from leveling up, from finding out what works and what doesn't, from learning more about the mechanics (and there's always more to learn) and how to leverage them to my advantage. Sometimes it does feel grindy, but there's always a sense of reward in the pursuit of the goals I've set for myself with planned builds.

I think the biggest problem with grind is that it is that. We call it grind because it is. It's repetitive, dull and not terribly rewarding in and of itself, even if the reward at the end seems worthwhile when we start. Taking the repetition out of it goes a long way toward removing the feeling of grind. Co* has already gone a fair way toward that goal, with more widely available contacts and a broad range of content, but it is an old game and a lot of people have already done every mission and arc and *F so many times that it's always going to feel like a grind for them. That's what prompted me to suggest branching content. Having the option to do something different even though you're technically on the same content can make it feel fresh. Most of the resources necessary already exist. The code which causes certain NPCs to be present or absent depending on the player's actions is a big part of this, I think it could be adapted to apply to missions, or at least give a solid direction for writing the necessary code to branch missions. Do X, and Y opens up. Fail or refuse to do X, and Z opens up instead. Maps and enemy groups would be easy to recycle, or partially redesign, @Piecemeal is already doing that. Add the appropriate dialog and contacts and we're up the tree. Ideally, this would be applied to radio/paper missions as well as normal content. Having some randomization in the mix would really keep it feeling fresh for a lot longer. I'd also, if I had my way, use it to revamp some of the longer story arcs and *Fs, both to shorten them to manageable lengths and to offer deliberately placed potential end points, so players could opt out for a lesser reward rather than slog through something that takes 12 hours or a week of shorter gaming sessions to complete. Additionally, this would be a better way to handle alignment/morality missions. Rather than simply offering players the choice to reinforce or change in a dialog window before the mission, have a branched path within a mission which leads to them making the choice there, as an action or decision. It could extend to a full 10 mission arc, if the player continues to make the same decision, or end when the player changes his/her mind, at which point they could pick up a new tip and follow that path as far as they choose. And because it's more dynamic than selecting an option in the mission window, it creates a feeling of being different. In creating branching content, in offering players the feeling of doing more than rehashing what they've been through more times than they care to count, the feeling of grinding can be reduced or alleviated. Granted, we're still just pressing 1 2 3 over and over again, but that's reflexive, we can do that by muscle memory alone. The actual experience of going through branched mission possibilities would feel different with different play-throughs, and no longer be a grind, but an exploration.

Yeah, we are. Derailing over, let's go back to talking about whether the grind is a grind or not.

"Playing games" shouldn't be on anyone's résumé. Nor should "I HAZ A GILD!" Examples of how your leadership of that raid guild enabled your fellow guildmates to succeed, though, is absolutely and completely identical to providing examples of your management of a crew rebuilding a dam after a flood, or running search and rescue operations in your county. How one says something is as important as what ones says. And what we learn in video games is applicable to the real world, when viewed from the appropriate perspective and presented as assets. I'm not going to add "Played Co*: 2004-2012" to a résumé, I'm going to add, "Firm grasp of complex mathematics and excellent problem-solving skills as demonstrated by my ability to comprehend mechanics in City of Heroes/Villains, allowing me to not only break out of archetype boundaries and create a unique and innovative approach to playing the game, but impress the development team to such a degree that they created an entire power set based on my work." Presented properly, it says a lot more about my capabilities than "Played games". It says I'm intelligent. It says I'm a problem solver. It says I think outside of the box. It says I approach issues as interesting challenges to be met, rather than reasons to give up or complain. And it says my work is influential. What you and Omega are experiencing is not employers preferring not to hire gamers, but employers preferring not to hire people who can't present themselves, or haven't actually done anything worth presenting, or who lack the literacy to present themselves properly, or who simply can't figure out how to translate their video game experience into reality. That's on them, the people who fail to use it properly on their résumés. I wouldn't hire them, either, if all they really managed to do was level up and follow guides, or assault my eyeballs with bad spelling and grammar, or couldn't understand how their video game experiences could be applied to real world problems and tasks. There are people who will work for below minimum wage and demonstrate the ability to follow instructions and do repetitive tasks, so why hire someone with that on a résumé?

Same things used to be said about having an unusual haircut or hair color, or visible tattoos, or males with earrings. Open-minded companies realized that qualifications are qualifications, hired these people and grew. Closed-minded companies went out of business. The wheels are already turning. Businesses started taking gaming references seriously two decades ago. The ones who continue to hire gamers will be the ones still around in another couple of decades, because the world has filled up with a couple of generations of gamers, who will create more gamers. The closed-minded companies can stick to their guns, gamers will still find employment based entirely on their appropriately worded and presented gaming accomplishments and skills, and we'll talk about this like we talk about other past barriers to progress in another few decades, as a memory of a time when people were less open-minded.

Branching content. Content which changes depending on which decision the player makes. Each run could lead to different outcomes, different follow-up missions, different endings. Do it one way and you're given a certain mission, but one or more other missions are closed off. Like saving a hostage or letting the bad guys take him/her, which could lead to repelling an assault by the bad guys to reclaim the hostage, or dealing with the repercussions of his/her capture, or a third option which sends you to recover the hostage. A lot of the existing content could be redesigned along branching paths, with the addition of content to create suitable starting, ending or middle points. Or rewriting parts of existing content and linking it as branches. It would just take some creativity and proper flagging.

Unfortunately, you're not empowered to determine what is or isn't meaningful for anyone but yourself. Leadership skills, the ability to follow directions precisely, commitment to a task, dedication to a group, attention to detail, all things which are considered notable characteristics on a résumé, and it's not rare for people to refer to their accomplishments in video games on their résumés these days, especially considering that they're looking for jobs amongst folk who also grew up playing video games. We're no longer confined to real world exploits or feats to display our skills and abilities, and it's not considered the same as participation trophies when people feel proud of doing something in a video game. Leveling up is the participation trophy in Co*. One doesn't even have to play to accomplish that, just log in, join a team and put someone on follow. Logging in is the participation trophy in other games, games which have auto-play features or which hand out rewards simply for having the game installed. Actual accomplishments are something to be proud of, something to be recognized for doing, even if some people scoff, because games have been in the world long enough for that to happen. This is another of those things which you have no jurisdiction to determine the value of for others. Sorry, but that's life. Progress, for the better or worse, has made this reality, and we can either recognize it and accept it, or ignore it and be left behind.

Which is a good thing. "Grind" in other MMORPGs tends to mean running on the gear treadmill and chasing new level caps. Content is added, but that content requires new gear and/or a higher level, which forces players to replay that content repeatedly in order to acquire the gear and levels, leading to rapid burn-out and short-term spikes in player population which drop just as sharply. "Grind" here only means XP and/or inf*/merits, and content exists in the combination of power sets, pools, *PPs, costumes and how we use them (size/gender changing, species changing, powering up, etc.), which arcs/*Fs/missions we choose to run, and so forth, and there's an end to it. That end allows us to move forward and experience the existing content in different ways (how many possible power set, pool and *PP combinations are there? back hurts, not doing math this morning), which changes how that existing content feels and refreshes the "grind". Having an end to the grind is the better approach, because it extends the life of the existing content, allows deeper exploration of existing options and permits players to form stronger bonds with their characters. Presuming infinite content updates and ever-increasing level caps, the grind itself becomes infinite, and players tend to show far less interest in repeating the experience due to the continually increasing length of time it takes to reach that momentary pause in the grind when they reach the current level cap or finally have that last piece of gear. And yes, it does mean some players will find their perfect combination of archetype, sets, pools, *PPs and costume pieces and decide they've reached the end of their interest in Co*, but at least they have that choice, as opposed to being forced to stay or return if they ever want to feel complete. People should continue playing a game because they enjoy it, not because another step was added to the grind.

Even if there's no profit potential, granting a license to operate servers can still be good business from their perspective. It's free advertising, it's a group to whom they can market other products, and it's good will generated. The real key is whether or not it's costing them anything. As long as nothing is coming out of their pockets, any agreement is a win for them because they're guaranteed to get something out of it.

That's replacing one gate with other gates. It seems that the question shouldn't be whether or not gates should exist, but which gates should exist, and in what manner they exist. Gates have always existed, they always will. The only way to remove all gates is to do just that, make every character fully kitted Incarnates at level 50 +3 on creation and give them full access to every bit of content, along with all of the tools necessary to do it (-Regen, -Res, high damage output, etc.). I don't think I'd be playing that game. I don't think many people would. Part of the core experience in any RPG is growth, growth requires gates. Story gates, leveling gates, progression gates, acquisition gates which make the experience meaningful and personal. Without gates, it's just putting dolls on a shelf, and that won't hold interest indefinitely when the dolls come out of the costume creator fully complete.

The only changes to procs being worked on, discussed or considered (to the best of my knowledge and ability to find, here or on the closed beta forum) are a bug fix and a re-examination of the PPM formula with the intention of smoothing out proc performance inconsistencies between types of attacks and not work counter-intuitively with Recharge Reduction enhancements. There's no sweeping nerf on the way. There are no drastic changes to proc mechanics or behavior planned. There's nothing to be concerned about. Use procs. Or don't. But don't base your decision on the expectation that they'll be snatched away the moment you reach for them. That's not going to happen.

Fair points. The bar has moved significantly upward from 3 +0 minions (even before shutdown), and TA was always intended to be used on large spawns, not single-targets. The 15% Res isn't going to make that much difference with multiple +X enemies, nor will a few points of status protection when facing packs of mezzers (you'll still run into 3 or more mezzers in a single spawn if you jack up the team size setting). The set will find its own balance in play.

Disruption Arrow, Entangling Arrow, procs. Provoke and debuffs are enough to pull aggro off of a good tank. A good tank using Taunt. And aggro can be viewed as binary, in that you either have it or you don't. Stack your Holds. Ice + Ice. Ice + EMP. Ice or EMP plus Hold procs in other powers. Bosses only have mag 4 protection from status effects. That's neither what I said nor what I implied.

50% -Dam to everything in PGA, Glue all but guaranteeing that they'll stay in PGA, 70% -Dam on 1-4 harder targets if using Ice Arrow (more aggressive slotting and use of Ice Arrow can bring this up to 10) , and now you can stack 15% Res to the small amount of damage those targets can deal, plus have status protection. Even scaled down to controller and corruptor values, it's veering into tank territory with mitigation that intense. For masterminds, allowing them to hit that level of mitigation is sensible, given their base hit points and ability to tank for their pets, or simply allowing their pets to do their jobs, but for the other three archetypes, it's a bit much. Oh, well. I'll use it on a petless mastermind and make the engine cry some more.

The final arc in the RWZ. Big Rikti butt, Lord Nemesis butt, you, Fusionette. Like locking a couple of cats inside an aviary. Oh, and Jim Temblor tags along, too. And a friendly Rikti. Mostly you and 'Nette.

The travel power comment hearkens back to I5, when I started experimenting with skipping travel powers completely. I slotted up Hurdle and used that instead, and found that it was comparable to Fly in speed. With IOs set bonuses, Hurdle can surpass Fly's speed sans Afterburner. My main is sitting at almost 66 mph Jump speed. New players, which included every one of us at some point, tend to turn on Sprint and forget that it's on until we run out of endurance and it shuts off. Sprint is also rarely slotted for anything more than a Stealth IO mule, so the endurance cost, in concert with active use of powers (attacking), leads to that moment of realization that we might have survived if we'd paid a little more attention to our toggles and turned off what we didn't need. It's a lesson typically learned around level 4 or 5, when there's a Hellion or Skull gnawing on our corpses.

I'd rather see something more interesting, like a short Confuse or Stun PBAoE. Either would be thematically appropriate and potentially useful.

Seriously, Emmy, who keeps tissues in their kneecaps? Use a box like everyone else. Then it'll be cozy and amongst its own kind when it falls asleep.

While I was cutting, splitting and shouting at firewood, it occurred to me that there may be, in fact, a problem with the hit chance formula. Granularity. We're not rolling an icosahedron (20-sided die) when we make hit checks, we're comparing an XX.XX% number to a YY.YY% number. That's 10,000 possible rolls. 10,000. Ten thousand. We refer to "capped" hit chance as having a 1/20 chance to miss, or, alternatively, a 5/100 chance. But it isn't. It's a 500/10,000 chance. And while all of those are mathematically identical, functionally that leaves 500 chances of failure, not 1 or 5. Granted, that still means 9500 of the rolls are going to be hits, and over time, it should average out that way, but 500 possible miss rolls on every check is... nuts. Precision down to the hundredth of anything is the kind of thing you need for piston ring tolerances and rapid production machinery gearing, not a video game hit check. The formula seems too precise. Too granular. Too many possible rolls for players to miss. That's clearly why they had to code the streak breaker and apply it to hit rolls. It's not there to throw players a bone, it's there to compensate for the overly-complex nature of the hit formula. And the 95% cap would actually be creating that problem by permitting those 500 potential rolls to exist. It's ensuring that no matter what, the player would have 500 opportunities to miss. The margin for failure is much wider when viewed from the perspective of the actual math, rather than simply considering it to be equivalent to 1/20. Furthermore, the streak breaker itself lack the same granularity. It's too broad in scope, with huge margins differentiating between thresholds of forced hits. Consequently, players are royally screwed by that mechanic if they're 00.01% below a threshold, or they're forced to slot extra Accuracy or ToHit to go above a threshold, thereby sacrificing slotting for something else, and even slots in something else. There's no parity between the cap, the formula and the streak breaker, they're all using different approaches in an attempt to reach the same goal. Having thought about it from that perspective, I think the HC team needs to spend a little time poking around in these mechanics, maybe trying a few alterations. The streak breaker should match the granularity of the hit check formula, the hit check formula just doesn't need that level of granularity with the cap in place, and the cap is counter-productive to preventing streaks or working within the confines of the streak breaker thresholds (in fact, the cap is completely pointless at 95%, it should be at 90.01% since that's where the streak breaker kicks on with a forced hit after one miss. functionally, they're stepping on each others' toes). Frankly, I'm surprised the engine hasn't shit itself into oblivion, trying to juggle all of that. @Jimmy, thoughts?

Lusca doesn't want a hug. Cyclopes go commando. Look at the health bar. Travel powers aren't necessary. Let the spawn move away before using an Awaken. Inspirations drop frequently. The mechanics. Look at the damn health bar. Melee isn't scary. Swan dives from skyscrapers are best done when the spawns below are -10, not +5. Turn off Sprint. Co* is better than WoW. HEALTH. BAR. LOOK. AT.

Yes.

Entangling should be the same for all archetypes, since it doesn't use any pseudo-pets, so the spelling error should be showing on all of them. There was an earlier report of it up-thread. Flash Arrow, Ice Arrow and Acid Arrow should all also be powers without pseudo-pets, so errors or bugs in those will show up on all archetypes as well. The rest of the powers are where unusual bugs might pop up, since some of them have different pseudo-pets for different archetypes. Before anyone asks, or starts shouting, creating archetype-specific versions of powers with pseudo-pets was necessary at the time, because they didn't obey archetype scales or modifiers. This allowed the relevant powers to be scaled to the appropriate values when used by anyone other than defenders. At any rate, test the pseudo-pet powers, for anyone still interested in testing. Note everything and, where possible, compare across archetypes. Whatever anomalies are likely to pop up will probably be in Glue, PGA, Disruption, OSA or EMP. I think that one's been around forever. Could be because Flash Arrow was a version of Smoke/Smoke Grenade, which had already been through a few changes before it was adapted for TA. Could have something to do with the Illusion Control sparkly eye graphic, which was where that came from. Could just be the engine, it's always had spastic moments.

The cornerstone idea of TA is supposed to be not needing to affect oneself because one is affecting enemies instead. Prior to these changes, it didn't do that very well. With these changes, there may be no particular need for the TA to be affected by EMP Arrow's buff (the highlights are some +Resistance and +Status Protection). The improvements to Flash Arrow and PGA by themselves bring a massive increase to the survivability offered by the set. When stacking Ice Arrow's -Damage on top of PGA's, it's almost directly comparable to scrapper Resistance numbers. Flash Arrow's increased -ToHit can be layered with much less +Defense than previously required to reach the soft cap. For all intents and purposes, an SO build can become nearly impossible for critters to hit, and on the rare occasion when they do hit, not feel more than a tickle. I believe the reason there's a push back against excluding the TA from EMP Arrow's Faraday Cage buff is because it includes status protection. That's every squishie's Achilles' Heel... but it's a little less problematic for TAs, mechanically, because debuffs applied by TAs don't suppress, whereas toggles do, so any debuffs laid down by the TA will continue to work while they hunt for a Break Free, or pop that Sorcery pool status protection power, or wait it out. A TA is going to be more survivable than any primary reliant on toggles (foe-affecting toggles drop when mezzed, self-affecting toggles suppress when mezzed) with some of these changes, so theoretically, TA would be a little unfairly strong in comparison to other primaries if it also affected the caster with EMP Arrow's buff. @Captain Powerhouse isn't trying to turn TA into a god mode set, just bring it up from the bottom. That said, I still remember being mezzed so often that I nearly quit playing entirely when I was leveling my Kin/Elec defender using only melee attacks. I probably know more intimately than anyone else how maddening status effects are because of that experience. And I wouldn't be averse to having some "fuck you, Bad Guys With Mez" from EMP Arrow, just so I never have to repeat that experience again, ever, when I'm playing squishies. But with everything TA has going for it in this update, I can understand the need for some kind of limitation. If people look at the mechanics and numbers, I believe they'll see that need as well. But the pets really need the buffs from EMP Arrow. Not because masterminds deserve anything extra, but because their pets are their powers. The improvements have shown to be effective in testing, bringing mastermind TA up several notches from where it was, but the pets being excluded from EMP Arrow will have to change if they're to reach the same potential as other archetypes using TA. They have lower debuff values, so the extra +Resistance from EMP Arrow would help them out in the way they most need it, and it would leave them open to playing SO builds instead of being forced to dip into IOs for the pet-only +Res and +Def uniques to make up for the weaker debuffs.