Luminara

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.

No. People are way too thin-skinned these days, too reliant on nannies to fight their battles for them, and assholes aren't going to change because someone in a position of authority waggled a finger at them. And special rules to control social interaction online, rules which differ from laws and regulations regarding social interaction in the real world, is a big part of the problem. Continuing the nanny state trend isn't going to make anything better.

In other words actual evidence suggests otherwise. People having fun within the confines of a limited system doesn't mean that the system lacks limitation. Nor does it mean that system is actually effective.

The problem being that "increased difficulty" is synonymous with "MOAR PLUSSESESS KTHXBAI" here. And it's not more difficult, it just makes us go slower. We aren't required to alter our basic play style or exercise strategy, we merely slow down a little and keep doing what we'd do if there were fewer +'s. It's like driving over a few speed bumps. Nobody panics and runs into a brick wall because a 12” hump in the pavement was too difficult to manage. They slow down and continue forward. Or, if their suspension is of good quality (buffers/debuffers, team communication, ample damage output, etc.), keep cruising along at the same velocity and never notice. There's really no way to make the game more exciting or interesting by adding levels to critters, because critter behavior and abilities don't change with level increases. A +0 critter and a +6 critter are functionally identical, one just takes longer to defeat and might have a higher chance of dealing a bit more damage (dependant on team composition and/or personal build). Unless the fundamental design of critters and AI changes, +X will never be challenging.

Because they recognized that even the mention of a reduction to maximum inf* gain would, potentially, have devastating short-term repercussions, and long-term effects which could take six months to a year to level put. If they had stated their intentions, they faced the prospect of more people actively and determinedly farming, and/or those who already farmed doubling down on their efforts, to accumulate as much extra inf* as possible. Given that this would be viewed as a "farming nerf", it was also reasonable to expect that supplies going to the market would have been reduced, as players kept more recipes and/or salvage. The existing supply would also, conceivably, dwindle as people panic-bought, theorizing that a reduction in inf* might drive prices up later. This behavior would have resulted in significant price increases across the market, creating the exact conditions feared and leading to further increases as more panic-buying occurred. Over the course of the weeks/months before the patch went live, players could have stockpiled enormous sums of inf*, drastically shorted the market supply and significantly increased prices across the board. Effectively, by announcing the change before implementation, they might have created exactly the conditions they hoped to prevent by making the change in the first place, and the negative impact would've lingered on for a long time afterward. Yes, being kept in the dark until after the fact is unpleasant, but the consequences of announcing their intentions could have been worse, and that was what they had to deal with. Like it or not, a lot of people are selfish, panicky and not very bright, and would unintentionally fuck the economy up so badly it would never recover, given the opportunity. The HC team decided not to give them that opportunity.

Grinding for an entire work week to pay for a few IOs; having to work around the inf* cap to buy one IO; spending ten times the inf* cap and still being only halfway finished kitting out a build, feels shittier.

According to all information given, any player can acquire 3.2 purples, using the least efficient method available, in 90-120 minutes. 2 hours max. That's a lazy Sunday afternoon's "I have nothing else to do right now, I'll play a game". Minimal additional effort, in the form of checking a few prices and making a few judicious sales, or using some converters, or some combination thereof, can bump that up to 5 purples. 2 hours to acquire "best in slot gear". In 40 minute increments, in fact, so it could be spread across three days. This is faster and easier progress than you can make in those mindless IDLE TAP AFK CLICKER BBQOMGSOKEWL "games" that have infested the mobile platform. If anything, this is more casual than hyper-casual mobile games, because there are no exponentially increasing progress metrics, no advertisements being peddled as a means of increasing progress speed, no gacha boxes gating progress. 2 hours a week to acquire a set of purple IOs. Seven sets a week if a player takes a "casual but still playing for a couple of hours every day" approach. That's only about three weeks to fully kit out a character, playing casually, daily. In three weeks in casual mobile games, you get jack, nada, zilch, nothing, and those games are the benchmark for casual. So, yes, this is an incredibly casual-friendly game, to answer your question. It's one step removed from a handout (and that's available on the test server). How much easier does it need to be made for the casual player? Two or three dozen purple sets as a reward for logging in? So they can... not play even more? If we're catering to the mentality that a game shouldn't have to be played, not even for a couple of hours per week, to meaningfully progress, what's the point having the game at all?

Not required to grind ceaselessly for minor stat improvements or increments of levels. Having the capability to progress without the necessity of treating a game like a second full-time job. Relaxed structure of play which can still feel rewarding without requiring months-long or years-long goals to serve as milestones.

For comparison and discussion, consider the inflationary control methodology of other games. Many begin with a specific currency, such as gold coins, but over time, have to add currencies of increasing value because there are neither currency sinks nor developer-implemented inflation controls. Gold is replaced by platinum. Platinum is replaced by mithril. Mithril is replaced by adamantite. Adamantite is replaced by diamonds. Et cetera. This succession of currency goes on and on and on, and has a tremendous restrictive influence on the game. New players begin at an enormous disadvantage, earning gold when the primary currency has devalued it to a tiny fraction of its original value, making it overwhelmingly difficult to afford even minor upgrade items. New player influx declines, old players move on, and the game gradually dwindles to a (generally unsustainable) minimum of hardcore fans. Some games use a base currency across all content, like Co*, but decouple progression from said currency. Effectively, that currency has little utility or value, beyond collecting things for the sake of completeness. When inflation inevitably spins out of control, nothing is done because it has no actual impact on progression, leading to a "nothing matters but stats" mentality. Since currency becomes increasingly irrelevant as leveling continues, fewer and fewer people bother to utilize it. The existing market, if there is one, becomes stagnant, underused and under-supplied with overpriced items. And the offered temporary boost items, "pots", or collectables, such as costume options, are typically grossly overpriced in an effort to give the currency some value, but this also makes them difficult for newer players to acquire. The decay spiral mimics that of escalating currency games. People leave, fewer people enter, game dies a slow, torturous death. Then there are the games which attempt to control inflation by introducing a new and different currency with every content update, and, consequently, making all previous currencies obsolete. In essence, the economy is almost totally reset to base with every content update. It does control inflation to a greater degree than other methods, but players who have passed older content, even recently released, are reluctant to return to it because they receive little or nothing in return for their investment of time. Those who are at the threshold of said content find it difficult to progress, due to the lack of other players. This method actively discourages players from revisiting content. It devalues the content itself, through the removal of useful currency. Inflation is controlled, but there is little or no life in the game below the most recent content. New players are discouraged not only by the lack of activity at sub-max levels, but also by the continually shifting currency and inability to plan out a progression path and prepare for it by buying things ahead of time. Worst of all is the micro-transaction approach, in which in-game currency is intentionally difficult to acquire without a credit or debit card, items are priced in such a way as to make them extremely tedious to acquire without paying real money, and progression itself is frequently tied to your bank account. Co*, in its final days as a retail product, was guilty of some of these mistakes. Our currency became so devalued that we had to have content-specific currency (merits) to bypass the inf* limit, and the subscription-based model was changed to micro-transactions (for which I sincerely hope the initatior of that burns in the deepest pits of Hell). But the HC team takes a different approach. Micro-transactions have been changed to use in-game currency, or simply given out freely. Additionally, content-specific merits have broader value through easy exchange, now that they aren't restricted to the micro-transaction system. As a result, our base currency is good across all levels and equally valuable for all players, and our content-specific currencies aren't obsolete shortly after acquisition. We have an active and healthy market. Content across all levels and in all types is (more or less) equally rewarding, so we aren't experiencing a dearth of players at sub-max levels or specific zones (at least, not because the reward is of limited value or worthless). And because the inf* and merits a player gains at level 1 are equally valuable at level 50, the game isn't restrictive or discouraging from an economic perspective. Contrast the current state of the game economy to what it was at sunset. Recipes which cost more than the maximum amount of inf* it was possible to have. Currencies locked to specific content and not easily exchanged. IO sets which cost several times the inf* cap for full sets, resulting in "dream builds" costing 50 billion inf*, or more, and requiring weeks of grinding or farming to afford each set. Micro-fucking-transactions. We still face the problem of inflation, though, of our "gold" needing repetitive upgrades to keep it relevant. The HC team recognized this and made a decision to curtail the influx of new "gold", inf*, to slow down inflation. They had also previously implemented methods of keeping prices from spiraling out of control by seeding specific items on the market. And converters, by their very nature, act as inflation control, in that they provide a comparatively inexpensive means of acquiring any recipe or generating currency with which to acquire recipes, which actively contributes to keeping market prices lower than they would be otherwise. Between these methods, we're unlikely to need yet another currency for a very, very long time, if ever, and everything is affordable, even for those who neither grind nor farm. Affordable within a very reasonable span of time, in fact. Not years or months, or even a couple of months, but weeks or days, to achieve "dream builds", and that's not weeks or days after hitting 50, it's including the leveling up to 50. So, as frustrated as some people may be at the notion of not being able to kit out a build with all purples in less than a week, this is the lesser of the evils in regard to the economy. The alternative, uncontrolled currency generation, has been extensively tested and proven to be hideously deleterious in the long term in every game, just as it has in reality. It leads to bad development decisions which create a variety of even less pleasant restrictions later. And I say all of this not as someone who already has multiple fully-IOed 50's already, and is therefore uncaring because I have what I want, but as someone who has 0 50's, 0 inf*, 0 merits. If you have anything in-game, you're already well ahead of me, and I still support everything the HC team has done to control inflation, despite knowing it will mean my own progression will be slower when the day comes that I can play, because I realize that this slower road will still be markedly faster than the road I'd have to take without inflation control being implemented. I still remember having to grind for a month to pay for 4-5 purple recipes, 6-8 hours every day, passing out on my keyboard sometimes because it was so tedious. I still remember never being able to acquire some recipes because the method of access was restrictive (PvP) and the recipes were sold for more inf* than I could accumulate in a month. I still remember totaling up the cost of my most expensive build and discovering that the 15,000,000,000 I'd spent over the course of a year was only half to two thirds of the eventual final cost. I still remember how much fun the game WASN'T when the economy spiraled out of control and made acquisition of IOs so frustrating and tedious. Those who believe increasing the inf* gain would be good would be wise to remember the past, too. As it stands now, you can complete a "dream build" in a couple of weeks, casually, no grinding or farming required, and that's without learning how to flip on the market. You're not suffering, you're not struggling, and you're not going to have it easier by making the economy worse in the long run.

There are no flags for "farmer" and "casual". The game has no way to discern the difference between the two. So turning it on for anyone means turning it on for everyone. That's not going to happen. And the HC team has better things to do with their time than to waste it recoding the engine to add an "impatient snowflake" setting. Play the market, or use merits, or farm for drops to sell, or save inf*. Those are the available options. Pick one and get on it.

I still have my first edition rulebook.

Rewriting the difficulty scalar specifically for T/SFs and trials is what I consider to be inflated expectation. There are less resource intensive ways to accomplish the goal.

Shadowrun used shamanic city magic concepts in several novels, back in the 90's. The implication was that a building, neighborhood, or even a facet of the city experience had a spirit which the shaman could use to channel mystic energies, or even call upon the entity itself. You could create a pollution shaman using Dark Miasma or Radiation Emission, or use Nature Affinity to represent the spirit of a park, for instance. With power customization, I'd reckon that most of the ranged powersets could be thematically envisioned as shamanic city magic. Some of the melee sets would work, as well.

This. It's 2020. Difficulty needs to be more sophisticated than extra absorbent bullet sponges.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9NVlpVL

Will never be valued because it gives the impression of rapidly diminishing returns, due to the additive nature of the +Damage equation. Half the ATs are halfway to their cap when they have their attacks slotted to ED limits, and every 1% increase beyond that visually presents less and less actual increase. Some ATs don't even need +Damage set bonuses because they can approach, reach or surpass their caps with native tools (inherents, buffs within powersets, Incarnate abilities, red Skittles). Increasing Defense by small percentage feels rewarding. It has a measurable impact. So does increasing Recharge, especially when even 1% knocks several seconds off of a long recharge timer. Increasing Damage, after reaching SO quality enhancements, doesn't. It feels disappointing, and the impact is effectively beneath notice for the majority of the fights in the game. It doesn't actually matter if you dealt 73 points of damage or 90 points of damage to a critter with 24 hit points left, defeated is defeated. Until the +Damage reaches that plateau of enabling you to defeat the critter with one fewer attack usage, or you're adding up the seconds you've saved while fighting that AV, you just don't notice it. +Damage needs to bring more to the table to be worth pursuit. You could recycle some. Perhaps even all. Take critters from other enemy groups, fold them in as loaners, or dealers caught in a bust, or whatever explanation of their presence fits, as long as they stand out in some way. Simply copying a critter in an enemy group, giving it buffs/debuffs and flagging it to pop in at set scalar values, though, would be a mistake. If your challenging spawn has two visually identical critters in it, and one has buffs/debuffs while the other doesn't, it's no longer challenging, it's confusing and frustrating. The original maps in Left 4 Dead are an excellent representation of this concept. They were limited in size, but had multiple routes to the safe room. The most direct path was emphasized by lighting the maps appropriately. You knew that dark alley was either a dead end, a trap or a pointlessly circuitous route, because it wasn't lit. You also knew that passing specific points on the direct path spawned ambushes, but those points were specifically highlighted, too, through effective lighting. Also, some of the critter models might not have animations for powers you want to use. You could still make them use those powers, but they wouldn't animate that usage. It would be confusing and aggravating. Simple visual cues make the difference between playable and unplayable in these situations.

No Marc Singer. No Tanya Roberts. Disappointed.

Right. The smaller the team, the fewer lieutenants spawned (default behavior of the engine), so the people soloing the affected content at x1 would experience little or no difference from unaffected content. Push it until, say, 3 buffing/debuffing lieutenants crop up in every spawn, and it becomes a different experience. Max the scalar and you're looking at spawns with the potential to negate your soft-capped Defense, bottom out your Regen, reduce your damage output significantly (through a combination of +Defense spawn buffs and -ToHit, -Recharge and -Damage on you), etc. Critters have always been comparatively restricted in what they could do. Technically, they have access to every powerset, pool and *PP that we do, but they were deliberately under-utilized. The original developers tried, a few times, to broaden critter challenge by giving them notable buffing/debuffing abilities, but they always approached it from the perspective of one buffer/debuffer with large buffs/debuffs. Those attempts proved to be wildly unpopular or ultimately fruitless. And they were trying to make different enemy groups feel unique by not replicating abilities between them (fearing a sense of homogeny between groups), so they limited interaction to the now standard "lock down or defeat this one critter (or one type) and you're on Easy Street" approach. The Paragon team just didn't have the resources to revisit the critter design philosophy when the game was handed off to them, so they stayed with the "one 'dangerous' critter" approach. Obviously, a handful of volunteer developers aren't going to have the resources to do this either, but imagine trying to solo a spawn at +4/x8 with several Radiation Emission lieutenants, rather than a spawn with the primary "threat" being one or two summoned Force Field Generators which you can and always do target and obliterate immediately, or one or two Sappers which are easily locked down and ignored while you AoE the entire spawn to ash. AoE status effects would be the most effective approach to the new spawn paradigm, so to even the playing field, I'd go so far as to suggest giving critters status effect resistance. That way, status effects would still be capable of tipping the balance in the players' favor, but not the all but guaranteed pwnage they currently are, nor relegated to useless (as they would be if critters had status effect protection).