Leogunner

FYI, standard Clockwork are weak to psionic damage because they are telepathically held together so attacking them with psychic powers weakens that bond. They are only strong to Lethal damage and actually weak to Psionic and Smashing damage, if memory serves right...might not be weak to smashing, that might just be other robots.

Which is what I'm trying to point to. When you say "broken" I think it's just an exaggeration considering it's not uncommon for certain undesired outcomes to occur: 1) you have to scour the streets to get a level up or two or 2) you out level the contact and they stop giving you missions part way through. Perhaps broken isn't the proper term.

The entire philosophy of City of Heroes is that any Archetype, with any combination of powersets, shoudl be able to SOLO nearly every ordinary mission in the game. Yet here you are, arguing in favor of what would essentially be forced Teaming. On what ATs? With what powersets? At what levels? (Because what's Orange or Yellow to a L10 hero, is Purple to a L5 hero ... and King's Row is meant for L5s as much as L10s.) There is a world of difference soloing solid-yellow-and-orange missions as a Brute, Scrapper, or Tank, compared to a Corruptor or Controller. Maybe you missed that I've been regularly having issues, with a +0/x0 difficulty setting? It's not possible to lower it further, as far as I know. Meh, I think you should just dial back the concern here. Paragon, as it's always been, just has various multitudes of early content, from Perez street sweeps to Sewer network runs, obviously DFB and defunct Galaxy City or the classic Hollows... There are just a lot of options and latching onto this particular progressions (King's Row) as somehow jarring is sort of making a mountain out of a mole hill. On top of having travel powers starting at 4, at best I could see this particular issue just being a product of yore when games sometime unapologetically threw you a curve ball and you didn't hear people collectively pooling their discontent over a nothing burger.

Thank you! But I'm gonna defend keeping FF on the list. On a Force Fields Defender, Deflection Shield + Insulation Shield give ~24% def/all to allies, +~16% def/all to allies within 25m for a total of 40% def/all (enhanced). The set as a whole provides some protection against Hold, Stun, and Immobilize, which is nice, and some resistance to a few things including a very nice end drain/recovery debuff resistance. As far as support's concerned, that's the entire set. The pool power Vengeance, on a Defender, provides a ~40% defense buff to all (enhanced), as well as +65% damage, +35% tohit (unenhanced), and a 13% heal (unenhanced). It doesn't offer status protection to Hold, Stun, or Immob; or end drain resistance... but it does offer a fair bit of status resistance and protection against KB and Fear. But really FF isn't bad because its numbers are matched by a pool power that recapitulates the entire effect as long as you have some +rech and a floor-prone blaster; it's bad because it does one trick period and that leaves it open to being easily mooted. Its offensive powers need to be significantly tweaked to have debuff components or some other utility against hard targets, and its defensive powers should have something that contributes to a team that already has two Corrs or one VEAT on it. That's why it's on the list. Force Fields is one of those sets that transcends typical numbers. Think sets like Storm Summoning... I've seen powers like Force Bubble do some crazy shit, on a MM, mind you. It's probably a set for people not waiting to be the cleric or whitemage buffer in the back. With that in mind, I'd definitely still suggest some fat being trimmed from it while adding some things to give it a bit of variety. Stuff like cut Repulsion Field entirely, make Detention Field a toggle with a time limit, allow team-based FF powers to be usable while in Personal FF, and add either stronger CC or some debuff elements to Repulsion Bomb. If they want to add temporary absorb to its palette, I'd say it'd have to either be a decent long-recharge single target buff or a minor temporary AoE possibly tied to a toggle.

Reading the thread and my post, I must have deleted parts as I was tapping my mobile screen. Lol it is missing some parts and is worded weird. Anyway, I was proposing using the powers of the OP but incorporating the 3 toggles mode similart to Bio Armor's gimmick. To fully flesh out my idea, I'll just copy/past the OP and splice my idea in there to give it a bit of flash and uniqueness. 1 Deflection Field - Toggle: Self +DEF(Smash, Lethal), Res(Defense Debuff)|Hardlight = +Res(Defense Debuff, Slow, ToHit Debuff)|Light Refraction = Self +Stealth, +Perception 2 Personal Forcefield - Toggle Self +DEF(All), Res(All) 2 Insulation Field - Toggle: Self +DEF(Fire, Cold, Energy, Negative), Res(End Drain, Defense Debuff)|Hardlight = +Res(Defense Debuff, Snare, ToHit Debuff)|Force Reflection = +END Discount, Resisted Mez grants +Rech Bonus up to 5 stacks 3 Anchoring Field - Toggle: Self +Resistance (Hold, Sleep, Knockback, Disorient) +DEF (Smash, Lethal, Fire, Cold, Energy, Negative) The defenses buff here would be minor similar to the passives available in SR or Invuln. 3 Feedback Field - Toggle: Self +Res(mez), +Res(Smash, Fire, Energy) per foe; Foe -Dam, +END cost|Light Refraction = Foe -ToHit|Force Reflection = Foe chance of 0.64mag knockback, additional chance of 0.64mag knockback to foe attack 5 Detention Field - Ranged, Foe Capture (Special) 6 Dampening Field - Auto: Self +Res(Smash, Lethal, Energy, Endurance Drain) 6 Density Conversion - Auto: Grants Hardlight, Light Refraction and Force Reflection modes 7 Temporary Barrier - Self +Absorb|Hardlight = +Res(Smash, Fire, Energy, END Drain, ToHit Debuff)|Light Refraction = additional +Absorb|Force Reflection = +Damage Bonus after Absorb is diminished 8 Dispersion Field - Toggle: PBAoE, Team(but not self) +DEF(All)|Hardlight = Team and Self +Res(ToHit debuff, Defense debuff)|Light Refraction = Team and Self +Perception, +ToHit 9 Regenerative Barrier - Toggle Self: Invulnerable +Regeneration, +Recovery, Immobilize|Light Refraction = Immune to Immobilize (you can move with it on); Foe Placate upon activation|Force Reflection = Foe -Damage Bonus, knockup upon activation, disorient Hardlight mode grants overall: Additional resistance to Def Debuff, END Drain, ToHit Debuff, Slow, Snare, Smashing damage, Fire damage and Energy damage and Team resistance to ToHit debuff and Def Debuff. Light Refraction grants overall: Self Stealth, Perception bonus, higher capacity absorb from Temporary Barrier, Team +Perception and +ToHit, the ability to move while in Regenerative Barrier and -ToHit to foes near you. Force Reflection grants overall: Self END Discount, +Rech Bonus, Damage Bonus after Temporary Barrier depletes, an Aura that has a chance to knockdown foes, and an area of Crowd Control that knocks up foes, disorients them and decreases their damage.

Because some of the newer sets have gimmicks now, I'd suggest something Force Manipulation as a similar gimmick to Bio Armor that gives you 3 modes that change some of the powers: Hardlight mode, Force Reflection mode and Light Refraction mode. Hardlight would be summed up as higher resist to debuffs. Light Refraction would be -aggro and stealth Force Reflection is -damage and knockback/down. A power I'd propose would be an taunt aura: Feedback Field - Toggle: Self +Res(mez), +Res(Smash, Fire, Energy) per foe; Foe -Dam, +END cost, chance of knockback mag 0.64 In Hardlight mode, the resistance per foe is increased and in Force Reflection mode, there is an additional chance to knockback a foe when they swing at you.

Uhg...really? You just had to go laying out all the feminism oppression topics? You sure you don't want to mention the pink tax while you're at it?

Yes, I seriously would. Those characters are VILLAINS, by their very definition, evil. As for my personal line? There is one - some things would serve as triggers - but I'm not going to explain, because the causes behind them are quite intensely personal. Nonetheless, as long as that sort of content wasn't required to advance, I wouldn't insist it be changed or removed. Because I can easily separate the fantasy of the game, from the reality of the world around me. That's a little trick I picked up from forty-plus years of playing games like Dungeons & Dragons. Speaking of which, I have played actual, "needs to eat the living flesh of sentient beings" undead in D&D. And in Shadowrun, for that matter. And oh hell, anything in the World of Darkness array of games. (I should also point out, flipside, that I have played literal Angelic beings, along with more mortal champions of Justice and Good.) Thank you for your RPG CV lol but you didn’t exactly answer my question. However, at least you say that you DO have a line. That’s nice to see at least. What’s not so nice is that if a dev went mad and added an arc where a contact says ‘hey villain, there’s an orphanage full of dead children to molest, go fill your boots!’ and the map was full of body bag glowies and each click gave you ‘sexually assaulting corpse’, and the text in the clues was extremely graphic, and someone came here with a ‘wtf? Remove this arc!’ suggestion thread, you’d apparently be ‘nope, that’s fine! Leave it in! I’ve done worse in World of Darkness!’ (Unless your line is drawn before that but after neck-biting and sunscreen). MCM MCM I hope you have the self awareness to understand the differences between your example here and the Harris revenge arc. Also, consider the restrictions of the ESRB. I'm pretty sure someone aiming revenge for rejection isn't something that would be strictly looked upon when submitting a game's rating as possible implications of molesting corpses.

Without committing one way or another on the "evil" bit, what bothers me is that I have to do it even though I'd rather just turn on Harris beforehand. I know I can't have full blank page autonomy, but I feel like I'm being dragged along on a stupid journey for a stupid reason -- and what seduces me to villainy is the idea of being the mover vs the heroes who just preserve the status quo. My solution, which has been working for me just fine, is to mostly not play redside. Heck I've spent more time goldside than red. But if we're talking about things that would get me over there -- well here's one right now. Open this up to some different flavors of bad guy other than 'hired hitjagoff.' This is a common statement among progressives pushing for change. It's the same deal with regards to pushing for diversity or some other form of pandering. Basically "Capitulate and you get my favor and those that you disappoint were not worth as much attention as I". It's extremely self serving and I'm willing to bet cash money, if the devs actually did the changes the OP asks, it wouldn't change the popularity of redside and you wouldn't actually commit to your agreement without consistent capitulation. I'll just save you and myself the time and say as much as I'd love more story branches in my villain content, it would be far easier and cheaper for the devs to keep everything as it is. Despite the argument against the slippery slope fallacy, it would indeed be the case that players would request more and more changes both red and blue side. My suggestion is to keep this stuff to AE. The end.

Oh, hey, Leo. Because of our discussion I went ahead and looked at page 60+ of his Manifesto. At 17 he was still spending a week with his dad and a week with his mom, alternating between the two. He says at 18, and I'm gonna quote, here, 'cause it's just -so- hilarious with your rejection of the premise of the impact of media: "At father's house, we watched the movie Alpha Dog after dinner one night. This movie depicts a lot of teenagers and young people partying and having sex with beautiful girls, living the life that I've desired for so long. The main character is a fifteen year old kid who has sex with two hot girls in a swimming pool. I was so envious that I delighted at his death in the end. I remember thinking that I would rather live his life than mine, even though he died. He had sex and I didn't. The movie deeply affected me, emotionally, and I would think about it for some time afterwards." Media. Has. Impact. It shapes people's perspectives by creating a culture of shared values. Not all of those values are good. HAHAHA! I honestly didn't realize toy were so staunchly advocating censorship. I assumed it was just an observation. No, no. Your example doesn't support what you think. I'm sorry, but if all you're trying to prove that media affects us, that is obvious that we already know happens. Attempting to link media and actions is not going to be proven using a hedge case like Elliot Rodgers, however.

He was 7 when they divorced. Having read some of the leaked emails between his father, mother and himself, it's obvious his obsession was money, over-compensating with said money and his obsessions with relationships. Frankly, I'd chalk it up to just bad parenting in general, but he was constantly pampered by his mother, sent on trips and the like and hoped his mother married someone rich. His dad tried to discipline but he'd always retreat to his mother (common child tactic). But he had very little structure. Again, his mother was no saint either. But I'd recommend you look at your bias now. You're demonizing the men here. The only thing I said was the mother couldn't provide the structure he needed. I didn't go on trying to paint her as horrible or scandalous...and it was the truth. I enjoy these types of discussions. Not sure why you feel averse to the prospect. As for the rest of your post, I'm curious if you see your own bias here. We're so quick to judge and prescribe motive but when called on said judgements, we retreat to our biases when in reality, we should question them.

Dealing with women and relationships is more than sex. Masculinity is more than chasing women. The guy had such a complex, he hated people in relationships. He needed a DAD to smack in straight and give him confidence. Instead, he had a mother that turned him against his father. The situation between BOTH his parents contributed to the issue. I suppose I shouldn't have said his father could have fixed the situation, but blaming romance in media is just as foolish. So much conjecture and ignores just....SO MUCH. But oh, those romance comedies are definitely the ticket lol No meme. It's gotten worse. Stop and think about it.

Women who need rescuing from domestic violence don't exist? Cool story bro. Maybe she just needed to suddenly become an Uberfrau like in your dialog edit. What are you talking about? It's not a real story...It's a story that HE wrote...Are we in such a place that we can't even criticize our own writing? Seriously...If you don't like the changes he's suggesting than don't like them - but attacking people's morality over this? Seems unnecessary This is where that whole "self awareness" concept I was talking about. Nowhere in the post you quoted, did he attack someone's morality. He literally just made a post about not liking the suggested changes and nothing more. Seriously, he suggested that the poster doesn't think women of domestic violence are worth rescuing. Seems like a morality attack to me That is literally NOT what was said.

Leogunner - I think you are treading into a much more deeply political space than these forums allow. I hear your argument, and your passion. I know you aren't trolling here, but tread carefully, there is a code of conduct. But rather turning this into an unwinnable game of personal life philosophies that no one can win...let me ask you - what do you like about the story that makes you want to keep it as is without edits? It's a standard story. The main thing I like about the story is how it brings to the play, the mechanics of zone phasing making certain arcs feel impactful and the world more malleable than what you may have encountered in past MMOs. Overall, the premise is quite elementary. I may not have glowing praise for the arc, that doesn't mean I'd advocate for changing it. Players are so caught up in one specific detail, that Harris had feelings for Page. They are forgetting that Harris felt slighted by his whole unit too or that he went out of his way to kill them all. They are also forgetting that YOU are an accessory to their deaths as well, not just Harris. At the end of the day, I'd say despite the basic premise of the story, it accomplished its goal: to illicit an emotional response. If we have to be protected from our own feelings, then I'll just end my words there.

Women who need rescuing from domestic violence don't exist? Cool story bro. Maybe she just needed to suddenly become an Uberfrau like in your dialog edit. What are you talking about? It's not a real story...It's a story that HE wrote...Are we in such a place that we can't even criticize our own writing? Seriously...If you don't like the changes he's suggesting than don't like them - but attacking people's morality over this? Seems unnecessary This is where that whole "self awareness" concept I was talking about. Nowhere in the post you quoted, did he attack someone's morality. He literally just made a post about not liking the suggested changes and nothing more.

Have you looked into the Elliot Rodger story? I'd sooner blame the fact he grew up in a broken home as a momma's boy taught to hate his father who is the person in his life meant to teach him about women and relationships. Media had nothing to do with it, unless you want to bring up media depictions of mothers getting undue custody of children when, in reality, it's probably better if the father raises the children after age 8 (especially for boys). But I guess that's a media depiction we've been socialize to reject... ... not only has it been commented on, it's also not a pervasive cultural issue in the modern world..? Ooooh ho ho ho...ho oh no...lol no no no. You don't want to touch on the modern acceptance of poisoned orphans subject. No no no...

Social Justice, itself, is a corruption of true justice by adding that qualifier on it. That being said, I'm a subscriber of the philosophy that prescribes actions based on actual harm, not merely perceived harm. Even racist depictions have an underlying purpose in society. The problem is, people have be come overly sensitive to their perceptions that they view malice, harm and violence when there is none and turn a blind eye to things that are harmful and damaging to society. Like, can you believe people are suggesting there be racial segregation in schools again under the guise of social justice!? And it appalls me that people assume pandering to people's sensibilities in a manner like is being explained in this thread is somehow helpful or empowering when in reality, it's the exact opposite! You infantilize women and "people of color" by PC washing media for them. But I assume you don't see it that way, right? You're trying to protect people from facing struggles from past interactions or PTSD, yes? You want to broaden people's perceptions to certain depictions and inform them of morally sound representations of scenarios, hmm? You want to stick it to those mainstream narrative tropes that encapsulates all the wrongs facing certain minorities?

Correction: NO ONE should have to die for ANYONE to deal with their shit. But yeah, equality amirite? OR! We can just accept that there is writing we do not like and do our best to make better products in the future. Rail on about how you can do it better, sure. You however open yourself up to just as much criticism so be prepared. Leogunner - so what MrCaptainMan said was true, right? Women (being someone) should not have to die for men (being anyone) to deal with their shit. Since the example in this case was specifically about a woman dying for a man to realize his flaws, and not about all people dying for someone to realize their flaws, I think he nailed it, right? You correction is unnecessary and obscures the issue, so not really equality... That's not what he's arguing though, now is it? Because if he were arguing that no one should die for anyone to deal with their shit, there would be an entire laundry list of story arcs in the game that touch or or pass through that exact type of narrative progression. Again, you miss the forest for the trees. Just because something is a trope doesn't mean it's bad, misused, faulty or deserving of ire and revision. I would be interested to see the arcs where a woman is depicted as mentally ill and murders an innocent man and is rewarded with a narrative twist designed to engender sympathy. You're being obtuse making the qualifiers so narrow when your initial objection has nothing to do directly with mental illness and you've merely pojected a gendered objection when you still have yet to prove it was intentional. Fair point. I don’t think that it was intentional, however. I don’t think whoever wrote the arc is a misogynist. I have an arc in the MA which I wrote back on Live. Rereading it again to publish it now, I noticed that it had the same unintentional sexism that I see in the Price of Friendship. My arc started with the hero getting asked to rescue a hostage from the Freaks. The hostage was a women, and a small twist was that it turned out that the Freaks were in fact protecting her from her abusive husband. At the time I wrote it I just saw a ‘standard’ hero situation. But I had written a woman character who was a victim of domestic violence who needed rescuing. Unoriginal and casually, unintentionally sexist. I’m no more a misogynist than I was then, I’m just a little more educated in gender issues than I was then, I think. Anyway, I appreciate that lots of posters here don’t think the arc needs to be changed. I’m also aware that very probably this thread is basically a bunch of men debating something which disproportionately affects women, but until some women give their opinion we have to take that into account. MCM I would challenge someone to find a problem with that story. You're mistaken tropes or cliché with social justice.

But he says that Harris being mentally ill isn't the issue so why would a relevant example of a person being killed for someone else to get their relative shit together require mental illness to be a factor? Or why would the example require the victim/perpetrator gender difference matter if we're to be discussing how NO ONE should be the victim for ANYONE else's respective character growth. The problem is, if one actually does expand this to non-gendered specific examples, we'll discover that using death as an emotional tool or catalyst is common. Biases start to paint a subjective picture of how those tropes interact. It requires a bit of self awareness to notice, but when you start reflecting about your own biases, you'll figure out counters to your own perspectives. I'm a little lost - but I think you are moving in a more positive direction here, so I like it... He said that Harris was mentally ill...So if you reverse the example, you still need to leave that element in, regardless of whether that's the offensive part or not. In fact that would be part of determining where the real bias is. So his reverse example is the perfect reverse example. But we aren't supposed to be reversing this. The comment was around finding a solution not a "gotcha!" example. I disagree. There are TOO MANY examples of a man using the death of another man for character growth (and when I say too many, I don't mean we need less, just too many to count). I assert to those considering this arc, to reflect on their own biases and not blindly listen to other's perspectives. You may discover a whole other perspective you didn't realize you were ignoring.

You're being obtuse making the qualifiers so narrow when your initial objection has nothing to do directly with mental illness and you've merely pojected a gendered objection when you still have yet to prove it was intentional. He said many times in his original post that mental illness was clearly the reason that Lt Harris was behaving the way he was. And gender bias doesn't have to be intentional to be present...Nor does any bias...In fact, many of them are unintentional. Specifically, that's how many male writers responded to the Women in Fridges articles, they acknowledged a previously unknown to them bias in their writing. I don't think ANYONE thinks that the original writers were malicious in writing this in the first place...That would be projection... But he says that Harris being mentally ill isn't the issue so why would a relevant example of a person being killed for someone else to get their relative shit together require mental illness to be a factor? Or why would the example require the victim/perpetrator gender difference matter if we're to be discussing how NO ONE should be the victim for ANYONE else's respective character growth. The problem is, if one actually does expand this to non-gendered specific examples, we'll discover that using death as an emotional tool or catalyst is common. Biases start to paint a subjective picture of how those tropes interact. It requires a bit of self awareness to notice, but when you start reflecting about your own biases, you'll figure out counters to your own perspectives.

Correction: NO ONE should have to die for ANYONE to deal with their shit. But yeah, equality amirite? OR! We can just accept that there is writing we do not like and do our best to make better products in the future. Rail on about how you can do it better, sure. You however open yourself up to just as much criticism so be prepared. Leogunner - so what MrCaptainMan said was true, right? Women (being someone) should not have to die for men (being anyone) to deal with their shit. Since the example in this case was specifically about a woman dying for a man to realize his flaws, and not about all people dying for someone to realize their flaws, I think he nailed it, right? You correction is unnecessary and obscures the issue, so not really equality... That's not what he's arguing though, now is it? Because if he were arguing that no one should die for anyone to deal with their shit, there would be an entire laundry list of story arcs in the game that touch or or pass through that exact type of narrative progression. Again, you miss the forest for the trees. Just because something is a trope doesn't mean it's bad, misused, faulty or deserving of ire and revision. I would be interested to see the arcs where a woman is depicted as mentally ill and murders an innocent man and is rewarded with a narrative twist designed to engender sympathy. You're being obtuse making the qualifiers so narrow when your initial objection has nothing to do directly with mental illness and you've merely pojected a gendered objection when you still have yet to prove it was intentional.

It’s not flavour text it’s the Nav instruction to the player. MCM It's also flavor text. It's not the 1st time the nav instructions to the player were used as flavor text since that text is sometimes the only text some players read to give context to what they are doing.

And my suggestion to someone who wants to make suggestion, would be to put it in the forums, right here, in the suggestions and feedback section. All suggestions here have subjective standards...nature of the beast! Well I'm glad we agree with the 1st post of mine you quoted where I say: "OR! We can just accept that there is writing we do not like and do our best to make better products in the future. Rail on about how you can do it better, sure. You however open yourself up to just as much criticism so be prepared."

So is your suggestion we don't address any issue unless we can address all the issues? We should start at the worst example and go from there. Do you have an in-game example that is more appropriate here? My suggestion is don't expect every piece of writing you don't like to be revised to your individual subjective standards. Addendum: Understand the difference between "a problem/issue" and "something I don't like".

Correction: NO ONE should have to die for ANYONE to deal with their shit. But yeah, equality amirite? OR! We can just accept that there is writing we do not like and do our best to make better products in the future. Rail on about how you can do it better, sure. You however open yourself up to just as much criticism so be prepared. Leogunner - so what MrCaptainMan said was true, right? Women (being someone) should not have to die for men (being anyone) to deal with their shit. Since the example in this case was specifically about a woman dying for a man to realize his flaws, and not about all people dying for someone to realize their flaws, I think he nailed it, right? You correction is unnecessary and obscures the issue, so not really equality... That's not what he's arguing though, now is it? Because if he were arguing that no one should die for anyone to deal with their shit, there would be an entire laundry list of story arcs in the game that touch or or pass through that exact type of narrative progression. Again, you miss the forest for the trees. Just because something is a trope doesn't mean it's bad, misused, faulty or deserving of ire and revision.