Luminara

Objects we're required to defend, objects we're required to destroy, objects which might cause problems with the /interact command being added... wasn't there a patch years ago which was applied specifically because players could teleport some things they weren't supposed to be able to teleport? The desks we were supposed to defend from Crey critters? I remember something like this... Allowing any interactive object to be teleported could lead to exploits or griefing, or in some cases, break missions, objectives, AI or cause crashes.

There's nothing inherently wrong with Super Reflexes, it's just been overshadowed by shinier toys. The Defense is all positional and easy to cap, so it's viable against everything in the game, and it's got Defense debuff resistance, so it's less prone to cascade failure. In the event that attacks do bypass Defense, it has scaling Resistance. The only real problem is perception, in that other sets also allow capping Defense, and offer things like increased regeneration or a heal, or extra damage output, or other tools. Capping Defense isn't enough to make a set stand out these days, so SR doesn't have the traffic it did in the past. Much like Regeneration being the red-headed stepchild now that Willpower is here, SR lacks the appeal of other sets for similar reasons.

Thank you. That was exactly what I didn't know and needed to understand. I was wrong. 👍

The point is, as long as the streak breaker exists, 95% is irrelevant period. Whether the forced hit was at 90.01% or 95%, it's still a forced hit, and unless streakiness is addressed in some other way, or the streak breaker changed to respect successful hit rolls rather than kicking in even if a hit roll would've succeeded, you're always going to be beholden to the streak breaker's actions. The streak breaker is what determines whether we have enough +Acc or +ToHit, not the hit chance clamp.

Tanks have a little more survivability, but lower damage output than brutes, who have a higher Damage cap and Fury as an inherent. That's a rough generalization. You can make a really tanky brute, and you can make a decent damage dealer out of a tanker, but the primary role differentials (archetype scale values and caps) ensure that they're not quite interchangeable with one another. The tankiest tanker is always going to be tankier than the tankiest brute, and the most damage-dealing brute will always deal more damage than the most damage-dealing tank. IO sets, procs and creative approaches to slotting can close the gap considerably, but they'll never be exactly the same. If you solo a lot, or just don't like tanking, brutes are probably going to feel more like what you want. If you like or don't mind tanking (taking Taunt to help lock aggro on yourself is a serious consideration for optimal tanking, so it means sacrificing at least one power you might otherwise take) and aren't eyeballing every 0.1% difference in damage output, you'll be find playing a tank.

Nor would I, but the streak breaker forces a hit on the next attack at 90.01%, rather than 90.00%, which makes everything above 90.01% utterly irrelevant. It doesn't make any difference if you're at 90.01% or exactly 95.00% or 141.59%, if you miss and your next attack has a hit chance higher than 90.00%, it's a forced hit. Anything above 90% is functionally identical because of the streak breaker.

That's already done by the engine. It either rounds up, rounds down or just drops everything after the hundredth when calculating hit chances. Granularity is relative in this context. In context, it's a question of the granularity of 1-20 versus 1-100 versus 1-10,000, and how that corresponds to the 5% clamp, and specifically, the granularity of 1 miss result versus 5 miss results versus 500 miss results within that 5% and the probability of streaking miss results.

Natural and man-made disasters have something to do with that. Earthquakes, floods, fires, tornadoes, molasses and other things have destroyed buildings and landmarks over the last couple of centuries. Chicago burned, several cities in California have had to be almost completely rebuilt, cities all along the Mississippi and down south, such as New Orleans, have experienced devastating floods, anything in Tornado Alley can be considered impermanent... it's not even safe to build in places where one believes there are no disaster scenarios. There's a town in Missouri which is almost on top of a massive fault line, New Madrid. It once caused an earthquake so intense that it reversed the flow of the Mississippi river. In the northwest, there are volcanoes like Mount Saint Helens, and people have settled relatively close to some of them. Few of the oldest cities in the U.S.A. haven't experienced some kind of disaster which destroyed a significant part of the infrastructure and buildings. When nature isn't reminding us that what we make isn't going to last forever, we're accidentally torching or demolishing things ourselves. Humans aren't the most forward-thinking animals, despite our large cranial capacity. That was mostly due to the after-effects of the end of the Great Depression and the economic boom after WWII, the move out of cities and into sub-urban neighborhoods and the popularity and general availability of the automobile. People had money, they had cars and they were happy to live farther away from where they worked, so construction and expansion revolved those things. Urban decay. Partly racial tensions, partly political policies (and corruption), partly economic issues, partly response to disasters. People left areas, prices went up, tenancy and occupancy went down. Buildings and streets fell into disrepair, utility providers neglected their infrastructures. The longer it went on, the more the decay spread, until entire sections of cities were all but abandoned and falling in on themselves. No-one wanted to live in these places, work in them or build in them. As people spread out more, away from the centers of cities or sections of cities, the car was reinforced as the ideal mode of transportation. People in the U.S. loved their cars. They weren't just a mode of transportation, they were an expression of freedom and independence. Route 66, road trips, vacationing at places like the Grand Canyon, television and film, sub-urban living, a lot of influences catalyzed the image of having and driving a car as the American way. Cars themselves were not only affordable, but designed to capture the imagination as well as the eye, and they did just that. A bicycle was a couple of wheels, a frame, a seat and handlebars. It wasn't stylish or artful or impressive to look at. A 1959 Cadillac, with those outstanding rocket fins, or the mid- to late-60's Mustangs, however... those were eye-catching and awe-inspiring. Seeing meant wanting, and with the average income gradually rising, cars like these were affordable to more people. Someone working at a gas station could own something like that, rather than only someone born into wealth and privilege, and they were eager to buy them. Engine displacement, raw horsepower, were also important points. Small engines weren't desirable. Big thirsty 8-cylinder engines with aggressive rumbles and growls, enough torque to burn up the rear tires while doing donuts, they drove car development here. Even after the gas crisis in the 70's, people wanted the sheer power offered by cars. They felt good to drive, they sounded mean and some of them looked outstanding (again, Cadillac and Mustang). They excited the imagination and satisfied a deep urge to tame something almost untamable. And speed... speed was everything to some people. The more powerful a car was, the faster it could move, the greater the thrill of driving it. Drag racing on city streets, cross-country racing... the whole idea of NASCAR came from moonshiners buying cheap cars with the "right" engine, making a few modifications to speed them up and driving at breakneck speeds to outrun the Feds and local police. Speed and power ruled the road, and average people loved feeling like they were the ruler of all they surveyed. It didn't really matter whether they were driving in cities or across the entire continent, just having and driving a car were what mattered. They saved time, they were comfortable, they were private and they gave people the sense of... of having their piece of the American pie, of living the American dream. Somebodies owned and drove cars. Nobodies rode bikes. The American obsession with cars still hasn't faded. Smaller, more economical vehicles are becoming more commonplace, but the streets and highways are still primarily the domain of large, powerful vehicles with sleek looks. The price of gas being less than half of what it was a decade ago, and in some places and at some times, even down to pre-2000 prices, keeps the love affair going. As long as cheap gas and cheap cars with some grunt behind them are available, people in the U.S. aren't in a hurry to switch to two-wheelers or public transportation, and with so many living on credit, there's a mindset that any necessary change can be dealt with "tomorrow". In a newly settled place, it's not uncommon to believe that there's always more room, more resources, more whatever. If things need to change, they can change "later". Poverty, corruption and the belief that problems are someone else's problems are also common reasons for things to be left alone, especially these days. Politicians don't want to stand behind, for example, projects to renovate poor neighborhoods, because they aren't guaranteed to be re-elected by whoever moves into those neighborhoods later. Poor people don't feel like they have the power to enact change, so they typically don't try. The bigger the problem, the more likely it will be passed on to the next person in the hot seat, too. When it comes to bicycle lanes, though, it's mostly money, of which there's never enough, and people feeling like it's going to ruin the driving experience in some way, like adding delays to their commute, or changing the way a street is laid out so they have to learn a new route. We're creatures of habit, and driving is a habitual activity in the U.S. It's not easy to change that. All of those. And more. Our political structure is very encouraging of bad behavior and corruption, our legal structure makes it difficult to change things like our political structure easily (too much emphasis on the letter of the law, less on the spirit of the law), so bad politicians outnumber good politicians, and good politicians find it very difficult to do anything meaningful or important. We're also fond of what little "history" we have, since our country is still very new by comparison to Europe, Asia, the Mediterranean area, etc. A 100 year old building is seen as something to cherish and protect, not to replace. A street which has dozens of old houses is a landmark, not a potential place to institute change. Cut down a 40 year old tree on a block and you'll have the entire neighborhood coming out with pitchforks and torches. The U.S. isn't Rome, it hasn't been around for a couple of thousand years, it's barely out of its infancy, and it's still stuck in the idea that it needs to validate itself by having old things to make it relevant as a culture. You have to keep in mind that many of the settlers came from places with real history behind them, history stretching back before records, and having to start over, create a new history, also created an almost obsessive need for what history there is to be important. We have no Parthenon, no village which has been in the same place since before the Great Plague, no aqueducts from the pre-Byzantine era, no pyramids, nothing like that. No roots in the soil of history. What old things we have aren't very old, but people can point to them and say, "That's the oldest X here" and feel some sense of pride or awe. This makes them very hesitant to change them, even if they're just 50-75 year old streets or buildings. And yes, Americans tend to be short-sighted. It's an attitude reinforced by things like Social Security, governments acting like nannies, credit cards and delayed interest loans. "The problems of today can be resolved tomorrow" is the best summation I can give. It's wrong, but it's prevalent, and it's going to take time for it to fade. Some progress is being made. Richmond, VA started adding bicycle lanes several years ago, including on old bridges which couldn't be rebuilt or widened, in "historic" districts and even in the downtown area. Where money and community desire meet, other cities are doing the same. It's happening, it's just proceeding slowly.

No, what I'm saying is that the streaky behavior of hit rolls is a result of the increased opportunity for misses created by the hit chance clamp. Using your previous 500 roll example, if you roll an icosahedron 500 times, you will have occasional streaks of your predefined 5% failure rate (miss streaks), but they'll be rare. Mathematically, it's very unlikely to roll, for example, seven 1's in a row. The probability of that occurring is very low, and drops with each additional 1 rolled. Streaks aren't a common occurrence when we're using small ranges of numbers and single-digit failure points. Perform the same test with a 10,000-sided die, with failure defined as anything between 1 and 500 (or 9501 through 10,000). The probability of streaks of failures increases because you have a significantly wider range of potential failures. A 1 is a failure, and so is a 2, and a 3, and so on, up to 500. Every roll has 500 potential failures, rather than 1, and with 500 failure points instead of 1, streaks are more likely to occur. Statistically, the overall hit rate would still average out to 95% over time, but I'm not addressing the average over time, I'm looking at streakiness and why it's happening. It appears to be happening because the formula creates the possibility for it to happen, through high granularity, and the clamp increases the probability of it happening by locking in a specific and comparatively wide range of sequentially numbered results which can be considered misses. The precision allows it occur, the clamp makes it more likely.

No kimberlite pipes around here. And I wouldn't know what specific geological features to look for beyond that.

One of the things on my bucket list is to make a brake rotor forge and play around with different metals and alloys. Reading and watching is one thing, doing is another. Also, there's gold in these here hills. There were mines a few miles north of my land, more scattered further south. I'd like to have a way to do something with it if I ever found any ore or flake.

Red + Blue + Gold = Purple Gold

In rural and sparsely populated areas, automobiles allowed people to make journeys in a few hours, or a day, instead of a few days or weeks, without sacrificing the carrying capacity of a wagon, so they could pick up several months of supplies from the general store 100+ miles away, or take the entire immediate family (which could be 8-12, sometimes more) to visit relatives or friends. In cities, they were seen as cleaner than horses, and less expensive over the lifetime of the vehicle (gasoline was originally considered a waste product from petroleum distillation), and still allowed people to move large quantities of goods/people or travel to distant locations within a short time span. Keep in mind, the U.S. was far less populated in those days, and even in cities, things were more spread out. Bicycles couldn't carry much, or many people, so they were relegated to leisure and children's activities. Cities weren't designed with bicycles in mind because the culture was still young enough, and the invention of the automobile still new enough, and the distances to some places still great enough, to be heavily influenced by cars. Cars fit the needs of the populace, so bicycles were relegated to leisure activities and children's toys, or something only relevant to those too impoverished to afford a car. The recent revival of the bicycle in the U.S. can be attributed to the health consciousness which has come to the forefront in the last few decades, in concert with a relatively high rate of poverty at certain times, the broader availability of goods (more stores on more corners), the way goods are packaged (little plastic or plastic-lined paper envelopes, small cans, shrink-wrapped packages, etc), and the ever increasing density of cities creating more opportunities for bicycles to be more useful. But cities are still trying to catch up. Bureaucracies are involved, and nothing is fast when that happens. We'll get there. Eventually. For what it's worth, the same problems are applicable to people on low-powered two-wheeled vehicles. Scooters and mopeds. I know from personal experience that having an engine and keeping up in traffic on city streets is no guarantee of safety... city drivers are horrific, and they'll blindly ignore anything that isn't on four wheels. I was run off the street multiple times, hit head-on twice (while in my lane) and cut off by someone swerving or turning in front of me more times than I can count. City riding on any two-wheeled vehicle in the U.S. is risking death. We need more than bicycle lanes, we need protection and consideration for all two-wheeled riders.

500 checks in a 1-20 range with 1/20 being the clamped miss rate gives 500 potential misses. 500 checks in a 1-10,000 range with 500/10,000 being the clamped miss rate gives 250,000 potential misses. Simply increasing the number of checks doesn't bring the two to equivalency. If anything, it emphasizes the problem with the formula, rather than proving that there is no problem. You can't treat a 500/10,000 range as a single number. It isn't. It's 500 possible results out of 10,000, not 1 possible result out of 20. Every hit check has 500 chances to miss, not 1. Statistically, they're the same, and they may both average out to the same over time without the streak breaker fudging the results, but this isn't about statistical averages, it's about probability, large numerical ranges, the hit rate clamp and how they're all interacting. Statistics and probability are two different things. I'm addressing the latter, you're addressing the former.

🍿

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.