Jump to content

Schizophobia

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Excellent
  1. ima put a pin in this, cause its really important but it will be more important later. (i had to get out paper to organize my thoughts lel) this is my bad, by "powers" i meant "power sets," and i assumed (without saying ha) that which ones were available were determined by inherent. which probably seems weird, but put a pin in that too. this is my second bad. [better] at [giving players more ability to express "identity."] since that was how i read ur point when you first quoted me, sorry if that was wrong. same with [substantive]. am i making a substantive, meaningful choice in identity when i choose execute over assassinate? because in game, the only expression of that choice will be when/how often i crit. so like im jill the executioner, i crit like this, rawr. vs im bertrand the dissector, i crit like that, roar. they're both neat, and neat in diff ways. but is it a meangingful difference, overall? omg, i am reading 4 posts and then also notes, i am going to cry. lmao ok, last stretch. real quick: i am a bit confused. you left assassination in unchanged. i feel like this is a contradiction of stated purpose? i hope i can make it clear why below. and reiterating that im not terribly concerned with balance (numbers, math, blah, hate em) just with defining a character's identity. alright, my pins. Specializations vs AT. in my mind, the AT's are inextricably linked to their inherents. functionally, they're the same thing. melee AT's are the best example because they all get the same powers/sets. the only real difference between them is their inherents. the choice between Fury and Assassinate is far greater and more defining than Dissector vs Executioner will ever really be (sry i don't mean this in a bad way or anything). people already talk about how they're not sure what difference there is between a tanker and a brute. i guess b/c they do the same thing, in similar ways. and as you said, stalkers [arguably scrap better than scrappers]. im reading this as the line between those two AT's being blurred. so, new inherents--because of the way this specific game already works--are like tripling the # of AT's. and since we already have 10, for comparatively little gain [for the stated purpose of allowing a player more expression]. and then yeah, as you mentioned, this is all dropped in the player's lap at character creation. how does poor, idk, im out of names. wilhelmina choose between six inherents that all sound kind of scrappery and kind of stalkery, when the line between those two broader categories was sketchy to begin with? its making the same kind of choice, but twice, and then also in a way that's harder and more technical to understand. its complexity, but is it depth? am, am i making any sense? hm in thinking thru it: are you thinking the lines are already blurred so screw it, blur em moar? i guess that'd make sense. anyway, im not unhappy or angry, i am just confused. and dumb. thank u for taking time to explain 🙂
  2. oof, i feel like there's a lot going on in just two sentences. im not smart but i'll try. 😞 here is my takeaway of the point you're making: the benefit of keeping AT's + multiple inherents is that it allows for more player expression of, erm... identity? we'll call it? i think? is that right? i think maybe we're talking at cross purposes. my point wasn't bob is less effective than sally and that is Bad™ because Balance® (that's another discussion but idc about that one its less fun). its that i don't know if that's an interesting choice for a player to make, or if its just a choice for the sake of a choice? like, in your example above. i can choose to be an [executioner] [stalker] or an [assassination] [stalker], and those stalkers behave differently. so that's neat. but at that point, what purpose does the [stalker] AT serve in that equation? why not just... choose executioner inherent and then pick ur powers? its like, now you have to invent an identity for the stalker. b/c as far as i can tell, the only real difference in expression between [exec] vs [assn] [stalker] is that one has orange numbers that behave differently. does that make sense? then my second point was, pulling back even more from that, real big picture: does this system really function any better than the current one we have, in this specific game? is there really a substantive difference between a stalker that executes and one that assassinates, or is picking Stalker + power sets actually more robust of a system? doesn't Stalker Assassination kind of already cover the identities you listed, plus a whole bunch of other ones Well Enough©? its a cool idea, but is it better than what's in place? the way i see it, the way to make this idea work would be to simply divorce power set choices from inherents. you can be a fire blast executioner or w/e. but at that point you've just... reinvented AT's. with more power set choices. which is also neat, but at that point ur just making a new game. so you might as well make a new game instead of dealing with a 15 year old game's limitations/design choices. sry im not smert
  3. i mean. y tho? or rather what exactly are you proposing? pretty sure my answer is "no" however.
  4. the only playstyle the devs should (and i assume do) support is: DO-only cross-punch + leap kick pve. the whole game should be balanced around this playstyle. will you go for li tieh kuai's earrings in leap kick? or gamble on the unpredictable visor cross-punch? choose carefully.
  5. i like the idea but i guess i question what the value of having archetypes would be at that point? why not just choose an inherent and then powers? which at best is kind of the function AT's already serve and at worst is sort of a totally different game altogether. i mean you could keep both i guess, but man. imagine being the gal/guy who has to figure out how to make sure every possible combination of inherent, at, power set, and power set combo a relevant and interesting choice. i'd feel bad for them lmao cause if you couldn't you'd end up with like: this is fire blaster bob. he punches fire!! this is fire blaster sally. she punches fire, uh... HARDER!! rrrrr! wow and eq2 have this problem imo, if you know what i mean? its a good idea, but i think you'd probably just want a whole new game at that point. and way fewer AT's (if you were going to keep them). just to not go insane i mean.
  6. gauntlet is really the only tragic one because tankers had it from the beginning. scrappers got theirs (along with a damage boost iirc) to make them less useless, and then everyone got one to try to shore them up/make them interesting and just 'cuz. except tankers. they just named the taunt on powers gauntlet and said "You were special all along, lol" man that's a Sad. i guess they were originally going to get fury? and some people were (understandably?) really salty about it, i remember that. i know fuck all about either set of epic AT's. the villain AT ones are all pretty good, i think just cause they were kind of built around them. didn't fury do +300% at one point and then they nerfed it? it was a lot of fun when the game first came out. but then going rogue kinda lul'd all over that one. anyway, yeah. gauntlet. that one was unfortunate. only one i'd say i ever had a 'problem' with or would want to 'change.' couldn't say to what though.
  7. im reminded of one of the devs (zwillinger? positron? someone) saying when incarnate trials came out that they "never wanted us to run out of things to do again." but then the shut down happened. bit of tragic irony there. not smart enough to offer any real solutions specifically for becoming more powerful. it sounds like that's what you're asking? sorry about that 😞 i guess if you just don't find playing the character for the sake of playing it anymore, your only real options are trying to eek out more power for your io build. badges? defeat lord recluse with brawl? finish old ouro arcs? have you done the uh dark astoria stuff? i never finished that stuff. probably just time for an alt but doesn't sound like that's what you want. im sorry my dude 😢
  8. i understand, but this is the same problem. my takeaway is: the issue is that ae farms provide more rewards per time spent than other activities. and second that the disparity is too great. regardless of whether or not i disagree with that (and i do, because that's not the basis of how i decide what i do when i play, and i don't particularly care how other people do that math) there remains several things which have to be addressed before anyone can attempt a solution. what is an acceptable rate of time-to-reward? what is an acceptable disparity between activities? how does someone determine the above? (which activity is the 'baseline' and why that one?) what is the desired outcome? (what behavior is being intentionally incentivized with these changes? getting people out of ae? making all activities equally rewarding just 'cuz?) what is gained by doing this? (what is the goal and why is it desired?) is this even really worth the time? (its an old game, everyone playing it enjoys it, i'd assume.) what is the motivation of anyone who wants to pursue this? (are they concerned about the 'health of the game', whatever that means? or do they just feel that some people shouldn't get x in a way they don't approve of?) i just can't escape the feeling here that people are people being dishonest with themselves and/or each other. i... don't farm. i feel no compulsion to farm, even knowing how much better the rewards are. i am a dumb person, i am confused. why do we care how anyone else is playing a 15+ year old game? im scared, save me.
  9. funny story, in first edition dnd you earned experience from acquiring gold. you acquired gold from going out into the world and doing things that accrued gold. hint: it was mostly combat with bad guys in scary places. you could do roleplay or explore or whatever you wanted, but those activities didn't offer rewards, unless i suppose the dm said that they did. so there was an optimal way to play, and optimal classes to play as to do it if gold/experience was the reward you wanted. damn those 'content locusts,' dnd ruined [shakes fist at air] (btw, really with this locust nonsense again dude?) in later editions, they did away with the whole gold=exp thing. but ultimately combat is still the way you earn experience quickly. and some classes, hell some characters, are still simply more powerful and better at it than others. so just going by the rules as-is? sorry, there's people who will munchkin and murder hobo the shit out of it. and if that's what they want to do, that is what they are going to do. nothing, however, is lost by finding a different group who wants to run in a different way. what you find rewarding is up to you. its scary, but that's just what being an adult means, unfortunately (?)
  10. because they're technically not overtuned (afaik). in fact the experience is already halved unless i am mistaken. its a choice of what content to run and how to run it. that's it. the problem isn't that your opinion is "controversial" in and of itself. its that there's actually a shit ton to unpack with what seems like a simple statement. life is just funny that way. just as a fun exercise, try to envision a system which offers rewards at an 'acceptable' rate across all playstyles and activities. and remember, no one way to engage with that content can be more rewarding than another, or if it is, it has to be within an 'acceptable' margin of error. you get to decide what acceptable means in both cases.
  11. i generally prefer to assume the best about people, but comparing other players to vermin, um. and juxtaposing 'farmers' and 'game players.' that might be letting the mask slip a bit, my dude. are you sure you're concerned about 'content players' (whatever that means, since afaik if you're playing the game you're consuming content) or are you just resentful of people who farm? cause the latter is certainly... something. being charitable and ignoring whatever bullshit is going on with that noise, your problem is that AE rewards are too low for people who want to play story-based ae missions. that's legit, sure, it sucks. but: you seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too. do you want to enjoy content, or do you want to keep pace with farmers? there's sub-optimal ways to accrue experience and other rewards, that's always going to be true, i'm afraid. and again, an auto 50 button is at least an attempt at a solution you're offering, but it doesn't solve the core problem. influence, salvage, enhancements and recipes will still be farmable. and people will still farm for them. especially if full rewards are restored for AE. so your solution might exacerbate the problem you're upset about, or just move it laterally instead of increasing or decreasing the time-to-reward ratio between farming and other activities. but if you're going to be abusive i can't say i care about what you want or how you feel. so i beg of you to maybe work on that and sort yourself if that's where you are.
  12. oooo, daaammn. i'd forgotten about those nerfs, that's a really good point. that's a really good observation. wish i was that smert. still a little leary about nerfing ae because i hate to try to put a cat back in the bag. but i think reversing or at least revisiting those nerfs would be a really good idea. jesus, i wish i was smarter. hot damn.
  13. i think this would probably be wildly unpopular with a lot of people, but i do not know. i have two questions though: will this ultimately have a negative impact on the game overall? won't people still farm ae for the other rewards, especially if they're increased? maybe you meant something else, not sure. thanks 🙂
  14. sorry you're struggling my dude. there's always gonna be an optimal way to play for whatever you want to do. if it wasn't ae, it'd be something else. but hey, some people enjoy ae, no skin off my back or yours either, really. try to chillax, maybe take a break. if you're not having fun, don't force it. but im not your boss, you do you 🙂 what does this mean, im so curious? my brain said i been peepin long time for money, but i don't think that's right probably.
  15. this makes me sad 😞 i don't want to invalidate how you feel, so i'll just say that that's gotta be a crummy feeling, im sorry. guess im curious though, i usually associate guilt with disappointing someone else. is that what you mean? if so, who are you letting down? i've never felt this way about another person's character. i mean unless they took force bubble, screw those guys. (joking) did someone tell you that you should feel bad? cause they were being a jerk. like even if it was just you telling yourself that. want me to fite em? i'll fite 'em. i got super efficient defender brawl, im not joking around here.
×
×
  • Create New...