It allowed only the dps part of ATs to overperform. But ATs are not only dps, there are also support and tank ATs.
Even if ATs need some more help now, that should be done in a way that helps all ATs (like making sure they have proper builds), not just one subset due to some random bug.
It allowed only the dps part of ATs to overperform. But ATs are not only dps, there are also support and tank ATs.
Even if ATs need some more help now, that should be done in a way that helps all ATs (like making sure they have proper builds), not just one subset due to some random bug.
Yeah I'm quite aware of that, but the thing about it is that the people that are aware of the such bug took advantage of it i.e. high end players. They would only use it where it would benefit most, which is Dino and Eido. Everywhere else, AT were pretty much loath or disregard as inferior even before the dr was fix on certain ATs.
Some of the changes doesn't seem to need changing at all and some are out right nerf (Blades and Soldiers comes into mind). On top of that, the bug is still prevalent in many ATs.
On top of that, the bug is still prevalent in many ATs.
A conscious decision by the developers. They're only fixing the DR bug on an AT once that AT has been reviewed and updated. They're basically throwing people who play those ATs a bone, gratitude would be the appropriate response, not criticism.
We've gone over the intent thing before. It's a dishonest argument. More importantly, you've effectively conceded the point that the patch has decreased game balance. But once you accept the idea that game balance doesn't matter, then all the balance patches over the past year become pointless at best
Not correct. The balance patches have been patches about balance between freeforms. There is no attempt to achieve balance between AT and FF.
We've gone over the intent thing before. It's a dishonest argument. More importantly, you've effectively conceded the point that the patch has decreased game balance. But once you accept the idea that game balance doesn't matter, then all the balance patches over the past year become pointless at best, and negative for the game at worst. You can't have it both ways. If balance matters, then the patch made the game worse. If balance doesn't matter, then all the balance patches over the last year made the game worse.
He didn't concede anything actually - you're reaching pretty hard if you think anything he typed communicates that "game balance was decreased".
Accepting the idea that game balance doesn't matter is a pretty ridiculous notion - you're basically saying "games don't need to be designed well" when you say that. You're basically trying to argue against the foundations of good game design. Good luck with that.
Also, there's no "having it both ways". Balance does matter, and all the balance patches, including the one that fixed the DR bug, made the game better because balance matters. That's kinda how that works: if balance matters, then improvements to game balance are good.
Balance is balance. There is no "my definition of it" or "CO's definition of it".
That's not true at all. There is no one-size-fits-all concept of balance - what constitutes good balance is defined by the mechanics of the game in question. For example a game like Dead By Daylight has a very different concept of good balance than something like Street Fighter. If you tried to take each games concept of balance and apply it to the other you would completely mess up each game's gameplay dynamic. The design determines what balanced means.
Again, the developer intent argument. It wasn't intended that FFs be able to solo Andrith. Does that mean Cryptic should nerf FFs down to the point where it's no longer possible?
That, or buff up the content to the acceptable challenge level. They've generally been doing more of the latter. I mean what are you even arguing here anymore, that they should never change anything to be the way it was intended? Mistakes should never be corrected? Improvements never made? What sort of world do you live in where that's a good plan of action.
The order in which classes were introduced to the game has no impact on balance. And if it did, well, the game has been class-based for far, far longer than it was classless.
But once you accept the idea that game balance doesn't matter
Because it makes it sound like your position is that game balance is somehow a bad thing. Don't worry about darqaura being in that position though because nothing he said in any way indicates that his position is that game balance is a bad thing - to the contrary, he realizes that ATs being weaker than FFs is the intent of the design, and hence is the state in which the game is properly balanced.
"Partially class-based" isn't a thing. It either is or it isn't. You're making the special pleading fallacy.
I'm not arguing that balance doesn't matter. I'm saying that it does matter. But balance demands a niche for every class. By claiming otherwise, you are effectively arguing that balance doesn't matter, whether you realize it or not.
Mechanics do indeed define what is good balance. What you're failing to recognize is that design intent is not the same as mechanics.
"Partially class-based" isn't a thing. It either is or it isn't.
Can you back up this claim? Partially is a word, that has a meaning. Class-based is a phrase that has a meaning. Put them together and they form the phrase "Partially class-based", which means that part of a system conforms to the idea of a class-based system, and part of it does not. Here, Archetypes are the part that conforms to the idea of a class-based system, and Freeforms are the part that does not. Looks like the phrase is perfectly valid.
I'm not arguing that balance doesn't matter. I'm saying that it does matter. But balance demands a niche for every class. By claiming otherwise, you are effectively arguing that balance doesn't matter, whether you realize it or not.
Your definition of niche seems to be unclear. Now, most people would point out that each and every archetype does in fact have a niche - tanking, dpsing, support, even crowd control. Some ATs have access to multiple of these. So going by that definition, each class in the game does have a niche.
FYI - FFs have access to the exact same niches, so on the topic of niches, FFs and ATs are equal.
PS - don't bother trying to do that thing where you try to tell people what their argument is, nobody's biting. Nobody here is accidentally arguing that balance is a bad thing, and that's quite frankly an insulting assertion to make.
Mechanics do indeed define what is good balance. What you're failing to recognize is that design intent is not the same as mechanics.
Of course it's not, how can intent, which is a thought process, be the same thing as game mechanics, which are a set of rules? Were you under the impression that anybody was making the argument that they're the same thing?
The relation between the two is that intent determines the form the mechanics take, and the mechanics in turn define what balance is based on how they need to function for the game to have the intended dynamic.
Yeah yeah, keep using this buzzword called "balance". I doubt you even really know what you're talking about at this point.
Try "balancing" the ATs against the multitude of possible power and stat combinations found in FF builds. Go ahead, detail out this magnificent plan to make sure the ATs can somehow be made on par with all those FF combinations to achieve this idealistic "balance" between ATs and FF.
Here, I'll answer for you. It's simply not possible. Balancing is very possible between preset archetype classes that have predetermined power and stat frameworks, because they'll always be constant against each other with very little variance. FFs on the other hand are so dynamically diverse that as a MMORPG game development studio you'd have to have either too much resources on hand, all the free time in the world, or to be absolutely nuts to try to balance FFs against ATs.
I mean, if you're going to entirely disregard the facts to do with the game using FF as a selling point and making ATs on par with FF balance wise being counter-intuitive to that, and call developer intent "dishonest", then by all means, show exactly how you know better than them on how to run things...
...or simply stop yakking about something you clearly don't seem to understand.
"Partially class-based" isn't a thing. It either is or it isn't.
Can you back up this claim? Partially is a word, that has a meaning. Class-based is a phrase that has a meaning. Put them together and they form the phrase "Partially class-based", which means that part of a system conforms to the idea of a class-based system, and part of it does not. Here, Archetypes are the part that conforms to the idea of a class-based system, and Freeforms are the part that does not. Looks like the phrase is perfectly valid.
I'm not arguing that balance doesn't matter. I'm saying that it does matter. But balance demands a niche for every class. By claiming otherwise, you are effectively arguing that balance doesn't matter, whether you realize it or not.
Your definition of niche seems to be unclear. Now, most people would point out that each and every archetype does in fact have a niche - tanking, dpsing, support, even crowd control. Some ATs have access to multiple of these. So going by that definition, each class in the game does have a niche.
FYI - FFs have access to the exact same niches, so on the topic of niches, FFs and ATs are equal.
Mechanics do indeed define what is good balance. What you're failing to recognize is that design intent is not the same as mechanics.
Of course it's not, how can intent, which is a thought process, be the same thing as game mechanics, which are a set of rules? Were you under the impression that anybody was making the argument that they're the same thing?
The relation between the two is that intent determines the form the mechanics take, and the mechanics in turn define what balance is based on how they need to function for the game to have the intended dynamic.
"Partially class-based" isn't a thing. It either is or it isn't.
Can you back up this claim? Partially is a word, that has a meaning. Class-based is a phrase that has a meaning. Put them together and they form the phrase "Partially class-based", which means that part of a system conforms to the idea of a class-based system, and part of it does not. Here, Archetypes are the part that conforms to the idea of a class-based system, and Freeforms are the part that does not. Looks like the phrase is perfectly valid.
I'd personally define class as the category of AT(Tank, Ranged DPS, etc....) rather than the individual AT anyways.
I'd personally define class as the category of AT(Tank, Ranged DPS, etc....) rather than the individual AT anyways.
Well, class based games usually have the concept of roles as well. Most class-based games will for example have multiple classes that are tanks, multiple classes that are dps, etc. and possibly even classes that can serve one of two or more different roles depending on how they stat and gear. One class might be the Paladin who gets Mighty Strike, Holy Shield, and Healing Whatever , while the Barbarian gets Big Pound, Tough Guy, and Woah I'm Huge and can be either a dps or a tank - so the class is generally defined by the abilities it gets access to as well as the roles that it can serve, meaning that role is generally seen as part of a class, rather than the class itself. Archetypes are basically the same - the Savage and the Grimoire are both classes, each of which has two roles they can act as, and each of which gets different abilities. Just my observations on it tho o3o
We've gone over the intent thing before. It's a dishonest argument. More importantly, you've effectively conceded the point that the patch has decreased game balance. But once you accept the idea that game balance doesn't matter, then all the balance patches over the past year become pointless at best
Not correct. The balance patches have been patches about balance between freeforms. There is no attempt to achieve balance between AT and FF.
Balance for one class only isn't balance at all.
Freeform isn't a class, and even in a true class-based setup balancing internally to a class happens, typically because the class offers multiple builds that can be balanced against one another.
There are great reasons to play ATs. 1. They are free 2. You don't have to worry about or learn how to build an effective FF....if you know how then sure you can make a higher performance FF. But if you don't know how then you can also definitely make a worse FF.
Do subscribers that are knowledgeable about FF power synergies need a reason to play an AT over an FF? I don't think so.
I see this pointless topic is still ongoing. It boils down to different people of varying opinions who are incapable of finding common ground. The proper thing to do would be to close it but do whatever you desire to admins.
I dunno I've seen the majority of the people in this thread agreeing. If you think the thread is pointless since you can't get more people to agree with you then too bad. 7 pages indicates that people wanted to keep talking about this.
simplicity is a reason on its own. I don't really think they should be more powerful than FFs, but they should be competitive enough so it feels fair. the greatness of FF is choices, not being actually superior and not being able to compete with a regular AT. I think all ATs should be streamlined and put into similar power levels, and comparable with a FF but not anything over that. and I say that as a AT player.
I see this pointless topic is still ongoing. It boils down to different people of varying opinions who are incapable of finding common ground. The proper thing to do would be to close it but do whatever you desire to admins.
What would admins close a popular topic? It hasn't gotten particularly abusive, as far as I can tell. And it is bringing traffic to their websites. Seems like a good thing for them.
- - - - -
SIGNATURE:
Used to be coach on the forums. Still @coach in game.
With how many times Reaper keeps bringing up "earning free Freeform slots through Arc" I decided to look into it...
Arc quests reward you with a varried amount of points and on a good day you could get around 300 points... 10 points = 1 zen so the 4k Zen for a freeform (not on sale) requires 40k points. IF you managed to get 300 points per day that would take you 134 days to earn a freeform from quests. On average however you'll usually get about 200 points per day which totals out to 200 days per slot...
and then Freeforms through Questionite requires around 1.72M Q. Silvers can refine 8k Q per day, so assuming that you earned 8k+ Q per day it would take you 2,16 days to earn the required 1.72M Q to exchange for 4k Zen...
So... we can all safely say that Freeforms are NOT FREE! You either pay $40 (not on sale), or spend 6 months doing Arc quests or Farming Q... or 3 months doing both simultaneously...
personally, i'd like too see em buffed. But, I do see the purpose of em, even for a knowledgeable player. it forces you to work within a certain framework, and lets you experiment with powers you'd normally NEVER use. Like, does telepathy generally suck? Yeah, but i had a ball getting my mind to 40. It's like a challenge run in another game, and forces you to work with the base mechanics of the game, rather than just raw theorycrafting. Running a tank AT, for example, upped my general tanking skill considerably, lol because if you can tank with an invincible, you can tank with anything.
but i always saw the ats as a bowie knife, and a freeform as the swiss army knife. that at might do a ton of damage, but it'll never hang with a freeform for versatility and survival. both have a valid place.
In game, I am @EvilTaco. Happily killing purple gang members since May 2008. RIP Caine
What he said. Playing an AT actually makes the game feel less easy and pushes you to play according to the proper mechanics rather than just ROFLstomping the whole thing. Whisper it quietly, but if you're levelling, playing an AT is actually closer to the intended experience (in terms of difficulty) than doing so with an FF. It all gets a bit muddled at end-game, however, and I'm not convinced ATs will ever be able to compete equally with an FF in that type of content.
Yeah yeah, keep using this buzzword called "balance". I doubt you even really know what you're talking about at this point.
Try "balancing" the ATs against the multitude of possible power and stat combinations found in FF builds. Go ahead, detail out this magnificent plan to make sure the ATs can somehow be made on par with all those FF combinations to achieve this idealistic "balance" between ATs and FF.
Here, I'll answer for you. It's simply not possible.
We just had a situation where FFs and ATs could be claimed to be balanced against one another. To claim that it's impossible for them to be balanced against each other is delusional.
"Partially class-based" isn't a thing. It either is or it isn't.
Can you back up this claim? Partially is a word, that has a meaning. Class-based is a phrase that has a meaning. Put them together and they form the phrase "Partially class-based", which means that part of a system conforms to the idea of a class-based system, and part of it does not. Here, Archetypes are the part that conforms to the idea of a class-based system, and Freeforms are the part that does not. Looks like the phrase is perfectly valid.
I'm not arguing that balance doesn't matter. I'm saying that it does matter. But balance demands a niche for every class. By claiming otherwise, you are effectively arguing that balance doesn't matter, whether you realize it or not.
Your definition of niche seems to be unclear. Now, most people would point out that each and every archetype does in fact have a niche - tanking, dpsing, support, even crowd control. Some ATs have access to multiple of these. So going by that definition, each class in the game does have a niche.
FYI - FFs have access to the exact same niches, so on the topic of niches, FFs and ATs are equal.
Mechanics do indeed define what is good balance. What you're failing to recognize is that design intent is not the same as mechanics.
Of course it's not, how can intent, which is a thought process, be the same thing as game mechanics, which are a set of rules? Were you under the impression that anybody was making the argument that they're the same thing?
The relation between the two is that intent determines the form the mechanics take, and the mechanics in turn define what balance is based on how they need to function for the game to have the intended dynamic.
If ATs are a class, then so are FFs. When you get right down to it, a FF is simply an AT with extra features.
It's a silly point anyway. A class is a predefined set of options a character can choose from. Any game that involves character customization has them by definition. A classless system is simply one where everyone has the same class, thereby removing class as a factor. That's why a game cannot be "partially class-based".
If a FF can do the same things as a given AT only better, then the given AT does not have a niche.
You argued that the game was intended to have a tiered character system, and that that was therefore balanced. The second part is absurd, because by that logic, any game operating according to developer intent would be balanced by definition, including a 1v1 game where player 2 wins automatically because that's what the developer intended. Intent has no impact on balance, period.
So... we can all safely say that Freeforms are NOT FREE! You either pay $40 (not on sale), or spend 6 months doing Arc quests or Farming Q... or 3 months doing both simultaneously...
Grind time isn't relevant to a balance discussion. Heck, monetary cost isn't even relevant to a balance discussion. The thing that people don't seem to be grasping here is that a game that is unbalanced by design is still an unbalanced game. It is remarkable the sorts of mental gymnastics people will undergo to attempt to dodge this simple fact.
We just had a situation where FFs and ATs could be claimed to be balanced against one another. To claim that it's impossible for them to be balanced against each other is delusional.
Then by all means since you claim to know better, back it up. Show detailed information on how you think a bunch of ATs with fixed frameworks can be balanced against FF with a multitude of dynamically-variant mix-and-match builds that aren't fixed at all.
You want to invalidate monetary business elements, you want to invalidate grind times, then show this brilliant plan on how balance between FF and AT can be achieved and how it actually makes things better for both the players' gaming experience and how it makes things more profitable for the company.
Whisper it quietly, but if you're levelling, playing an AT is actually closer to the intended experience (in terms of difficulty) than doing so with an FF.
That depends how you build your FFs. I know that some people make the assumption that all FF players build the same way, piling in heals and ADs ( not really sure where that belief comes from, since those kinds of builds appear to actually be in the minority ). There's quite a few of us who build our FFs like ATs tho, preferring to have a bunch of attacks rather than just a lot of survival stuff - since that's more fun. Which means that, in those cases, playing an AT with the DR-bug was potentially easier since they would be doing more damage than the FF would with a similar build. I know for sure that Behemothking bouncing through the QWZ one-shotting mobs on his Unleashed before they can appreciably hurt him didn't look like the intended experience, lol
If ATs are a class, then so are FFs. When you get right down to it, a FF is simply an AT with extra features.
You seem to be missing the point here. You have to actually back this claim up - simply restating the claim doesn't count. As far as I can tell you've got nothing on this, and others have given solid points against it, so I humbly await your counterclaim on this matter. Feel free to simply restate the claim, but that won't convince anyone.
It's a silly point anyway. A class is a predefined set of options a character can choose from. Any game that involves character customization has them by definition. A classless system is simply one where everyone has the same class, thereby removing class as a factor. That's why a game cannot be "partially class-based".
Before ATs existed, everyone was Freeform - hence a classless system by your own definition. Once ATs were introduced, it introduced a class-based system into the game. However, the classless system that existed before was still present. Hence, partially class-based. Doesn't seem so silly when I back it up with substantial reasoning doesn't it?
Also, Freeforms don't have a predefined set of options a character can choose from - they have all the options in the game. You could claim this is "predefined" as in "well we predefined that they get access to everything!" but then you've completely lost any meaning regarding the use of the word predefined since that isn't very defined - it'd be like claiming you can drive wherever you want as a predefined route. Again, your own definition supports my claim.
You argued that the game was intended to have a tiered character system, and that that was therefore balanced. The second part is absurd, because by that logic, any game operating according to developer intent would be balanced by definition, including a 1v1 game where player 2 wins automatically because that's what the developer intended. Intent has no impact on balance, period.
It's not absurd at all. There is no universal authority on balance - balance is what it was intended to be by the developer. A game where player 2 wins automatically might not be very popular, but it is balanced according to the intent of those who made it. You might want to claim otherwise, but you're not really an authority on their game - your take on the game's balance is an opinion, while theirs was the driving force behind the entire games design.
Also, there are games out right now where you will see 1v1 confrontations between players where one player has a significant advantage over the other player. Some of them are quite popular in fact, raking in millions of dollars in revenue. Look up "Asymmetrical Balance" for an explanation of why these types of games work.
Grind time isn't relevant to a balance discussion. Heck, monetary cost isn't even relevant to a balance discussion. The thing that people don't seem to be grasping here is that a game that is unbalanced by design is still an unbalanced game. It is remarkable the sorts of mental gymnastics people will undergo to attempt to dodge this simple fact.
People are pointing out the amount of grind time and monetary cost in order to counter your claim that "FF is free!". They did so very well and it's clear you have nothing to come back at them with. After all, if cost/time was irrelevant then why was it relevant for you to claim that they were free?
You're not grasping the fact that your opinion of what makes a game balanced is not universal, 'and also of the fact that you have to back up the claim that a game is unbalanced rather than simply repeated that claim over and over. As far as mental gymnastics, you've been going for the gold so don't bother trying to point that finger at anyone else - most people debating with you have simply been pointing out facts such as developer intent, the game's history, and the observable differences between this game and others, while you've been trying to claim that your opinion outranks that of the people who made the game and have tried to draw comparisons between systems which share almost nothing in common.
Which means that, in those cases, playing an AT with the DR-bug was potentially easier since they would be doing more damage than the FF would with a similar build. I know for sure that Behemothking bouncing through the QWZ one-shotting mobs on his Unleashed before they can appreciably hurt him didn't look like the intended experience, lol
Yes. But the intended experience probably didn't have that level of gear creep in it, either. If you don't have 600 in a stat it works a little differently.
Which means that, in those cases, playing an AT with the DR-bug was potentially easier since they would be doing more damage than the FF would with a similar build. I know for sure that Behemothking bouncing through the QWZ one-shotting mobs on his Unleashed before they can appreciably hurt him didn't look like the intended experience, lol
Yes. But the intended experience probably didn't have that level of gear creep in it, either. If you don't have 600 in a stat it works a little differently.
Well yes, the intended experience also didn't have the DR bug. It's difficult to really peg "the intended experience" anyway, since it's a super hero game. I think the experience runs the gamut from "superman beating up low level thugs like nothing" to "somehow Stick Swinging Boy has found himself as part of a cosmic battle against a god but gosh darn it he's gonna help!". Especially nowadays now that we have some challenging content so that we can have "superman fighting super threats" as well. CO's intended experience is a beautiful rainbow of diversity! \o/
Otherwise why even bother being a freeform is kinda the whole point.
I dunno, making fun creative builds? Mind blowing concept, I know. I have a thread where I show off some of my characters, so you can just go watch that. Need a link?
Well yes, the intended experience also didn't have the DR bug.
It wouldn't, since the gear which made the DR bug Suddenly Very Urgent And In Need Of A Fix wasn't in the game at the time it was (mostly) written.
CO's intended experience is a beautiful rainbow of diversity! \o/
It is. Generally a good thing, occasionally a problem, since it does allow for those "Stick Swinging Boy vs Galactus" moments generally avoided by sensible comic editors. From my point of view ( where the intended experience is Silver Age comics) then many ATs, run with standard gear, in normal content, hit the spot quite nicely. And that (in relation to the question in the OP) was all I came to say.
From my point of view ( where the intended experience is Silver Age comics) then many ATs, run with standard gear, in normal content, hit the spot quite nicely. And that (in relation to the question in the OP) was all I came to say.
Yeah, that's why I'm glad we got the new content that's tuned to provide that experience with current gear.
You are full of it Spinny. Every freeform under the sun piles on as much buffs, heals etc to give a tactical advantage. Otherwise why even bother being a freeform is kinda the whole point. I hate liars for the record and compulsive ones even more. -wink-
Many of us make characters that don't load up on heals, ADs, AOs, or cheese. If we did then all of us Altoholics would be non-existent... there is no fun in repeating the same build a dozen times. me personally, I don't take ADs on my DPS builds and the only time I have 2 ADs is if I'm using PFF as my passive on a tank. Sure I try to include a heal on everyone, but not everyone gets a solid heal, some have far less reliable self-healing options because they fit their theme better.
Otherwise why even bother being a freeform is kinda the whole point.
I dunno, making fun creative builds? Mind blowing concept, I know. I have a thread where I show off some of my characters, so you can just go watch that. Need a link?
Yeah one of my characters uses a mix of powers(might/ice/fire) that no AT has ever had.
Simple thoughts: Nothing new, everyone has already argued for and against a great many things. I just want to be a part of stuff. I think there should be a clear tier system for the classes.
Free ATs - Should be good enough to do Alerts and contribute to Adventure packs. They should be (primarily) team reliant. Think sidekicks, street heroes, or teen superheros and the like. Participating in Cosmics are only achievable with intense focus and dedication. Think of any team focused comic book hero that if they were on their own, would probably get their butts kicked versus the BIG BAD. Killing mooks is more their thing and they are good at it.
Paid for ATs - Pro heroes, the big leagues, they can contribute to Cosmics just fine, pretty much carry Alerts, and have the tools so solo an Adventure pack if they want too (even though some of those take FOREVER!) These are your heroes that started in a SG but eventually were given their own dedicated or one shot comic book.
Free Forms - (Gimping your build aside.) These are the Planet-Crackers and Paragons of superhero-dom. They should be on the front line and the "Class" everyone aspires to be. These were the Heroes that had their own comic book first, but only sided with a SG for story reasons. With proper knowledge and skill these guys should be able to handle any and all content on their own, with the exception of Cosmics, but they remain the top contributors, end game wise, in whatever role they chose.
Silver AT = Team orientated heroes. Sidekicks. Supporting cast. Would get trashed by the Big Bad on their own. Only stars in a team comic book, is in a bad TV show. Usually part of some trope, might even be color coordinated. Wants to be a break out character, cant get enough fans. Kids still want to be the red one, but you all cant be the red one. Character building is limited to a hand full of either/or choices = Free
Premium AT = Protects the city, does most things solo, teams up versus the big bad. Does get their own solo comic book series from time to time, but mostly known as a leading role in a comic book team. Has had at least 2 successful seasons in a TV show before everything went to crud, then they started teaming up to remain relevant. Character building has a LOT more either/or choices = You pay for it.
Freeform A = Planet-cracker, the flagship superhero. Started with their own comic book, the BAD has to be TOO BIG in order to warrant a team up. Shows up in graphic novels a lot, comic book geeks will know who they are, say they are on par with the mainstream heroes, no one cares. Probably won some obscure award for best written comic no one has read. Has some killer straight to video releases, maybe a "Netvidz Original." Show gets cancelled for not selling merch for some reason, but people love the character regardless. Has the most kickstarters and gofundmes to get thier show put back on the air AGAIN. Companies ignore them. Character building has all choices opened but really not a ton of cosmetic control. = You pay your 50 bucks. Or get lucky and get one for half price or free like I did.
Freeform B = Planet-cracker, the box office superhero. Started with their own comic book, probably has a movie franchise and some other popular merch. Their names are plastered everywhere. Overhyped. Had TV shows, movies, cartoons, flash videos, fanfics, and more. We get sick of seeing their origin stories over and over again. We still buy their t-shirts, posters and all that other junk. Little timmy just got on board the hype train and will claim he knows more about the character than you do because he read this one wiki page. So many cosplay and alternative cosplay, multiverse cosplays and more. Even ends up in the news because of some marketing ploy controversy. The BAD has to be TOO BIG in order to warrant a team up, or if the cash is right and it will push more merch. Character building has all choices opened and full cosmetic control = You pay monthly for it.
How is that job as Trump's Press Secretary panning out, spinny?
Yeah, that's why I'm glad we got the new content that's tuned to provide that experience with current gear.
It does, but only for the people who have oodles of knowledge, already acquired massive stacks of resources, and who are willing/enthusiastic enough to play awful content like Onslaught in order to get that gear. And great if you do - enjoy that content. But otherwise I think the ladder up from levelling content to Cosmics/TA is very, very steep and doesn't have a lot of steps along the way, leading to jumps that are too big for many AT players to make while still remaining fun to play. Hopefully all the work they're doing with queueable Lairs and Crises will make a difference, although it would be nice to have some of the options we have with PvP - AT only queues, for example - or some post 40 measure of power to help make team-building more equal and fun.
Most ATs are probably closer than well-built FFs (with notable exceptions such as the Unleashed, which is still well above what the developers probably want in terms of power). Not all FFs are well-built, though. They can be, if the player wants, but that doesn't guarantee they will be.
It isn't necessary for ATs to compete with FFs in endgame content. Different abilities and classes excel in different situations, and there's nothing wrong with that, so long as there is content where there is a corresponding advantage. As a rough example, if FFs had an inherent +50% damage resistance vs Cosmics and ATs had +50% damage resistance vs Nemeses, that would be acceptable. The numbers wouldn't even need to be the same.
At no point have I expressed interest in invalidating anything, though I'm sure you'll try to argue otherwise.
Balance existed in some form before the patch, because both ATs and FFs possessed advantages over each other. In addition, in the long forgotten past back when PvP wasn't dead, ATs had the advantage of being able to enter AT-specific matches. Hypothetically, if ATs were to be given some new AT-specific advantage tomorrow, balance could be re-established, without threatening the overall mechanical dominance of FFs (in much the same way that birds can fly, but that doesn't stop mammals from occupying and dominating many, many more ecological niches than they do).
Some claimed FFs cost money. I pointed out that they did not have to. It doesn't affect balance either way.
Classless systems, despite the name, aren't actually classless. They simply have one single class to which every player belongs. In this way, class is removed as a factor. The introduction of ATs didn't introduce classes into the game; it introduced more classes into the game.
FFs can't take any option they want. There are a wide variety of enemy-only abilities that FFs do not have access to, for example. More importantly, FFs have to obey tier requirements and such.
I shouldn't have to support a claim that is common sense (even people on your side of the argument in this thread have referred to FF as a class), but if you insist, let's go look up a definition: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_class[/url]
[quote]a common method of arbitrating the capabilities of different game characters...A character class aggregates several abilities and aptitudes[/quote]
FF qualifies. But even if you could find some way to change the definition of what a class is to suit your purposes, it wouldn't change the fact that your argument is nonsensical. You are literally arguing that intentional imbalance is balanced. Such a position is absurd, and all you have to support it are red herrings.
Balance is determined by the presence or absence of mechanical advantages. Opinion and developer intent do not enter into it. The very idea that they could is absurd. If opinion mattered in balance, then balance discussions would be impossible. And as for developer intent, well, I've already went over why that's a dishonest argument (people disagree with the developer's intent all the time for balance reasons). Moreover, it's unlikely that the development team would have a unified view of what the game should be to begin with (and even if they did, it can and has changed over time).
The game is less balanced than it was before. That is a fact. You may consider it a positive thing in this particular case, and you are entitled to that opinion. That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm pointing out, though.
Most ATs are probably closer than well-built FFs (with notable exceptions such as the Unleashed, which is still well above what the developers probably want in terms of power). Not all FFs are well-built, though. They can be, if the player wants, but that doesn't guarantee they will be.
The ATs that have had recent balance passes or recently released are closer to well-built FFs, and only because the player base had a direct hand in their development this time around.
It isn't necessary for ATs to compete with FFs in endgame content. Different abilities and classes excel in different situations, and there's nothing wrong with that, so long as there is content where there is a corresponding advantage. As a rough example, if FFs had an inherent +50% damage resistance vs Cosmics and ATs had +50% damage resistance vs Nemeses, that would be acceptable. The numbers wouldn't even need to be the same.
The ATs that have had recent balance passes or recently released are closer to well-built FFs, and only because the player base had a direct hand in their development this time around.[/quote]
Actually, it is necessary for ATs to compete with FF in endgame. Is it nessesary for them to have an edge in endgame? No. But it is necessary for them to be able to compete. It is a sign of bad design if you introduce classes to a game that cannot compete in the endgame content of a game.
Balance existed in some form before the patch, because both ATs and FFs possessed advantages over each other. In addition, in the long forgotten past back when PvP wasn't dead, ATs had the advantage of being able to enter AT-specific matches. Hypothetically, if ATs were to be given some new AT-specific advantage tomorrow, balance could be re-established, without threatening the overall mechanical dominance of FFs (in much the same way that birds can fly, but that doesn't stop mammals from occupying and dominating many, many more ecological niches than they do).
Giving either side a direct advantage is NOT balance. Balance between ATs and FFs can be achieved by simply giving ATs the full number of available powers, and continuing the trend of allowing the player base to influence the design of new ATs and passes on existing ATs to give them more reliable builds.
Some claimed FFs cost money. I pointed out that they did not have to. It doesn't affect balance either way.
Actually, the claims were that FF are paid content. And they are. You either pay for them with cash or you pay for them with time. Either way they have a large investment cost, $20-$40 each or 3-6 months each to buy them outright, and the discounted price even has a time investment of it's own.
Classless systems, despite the name, aren't actually classless. They simply have one single class to which every player belongs. In this way, class is removed as a factor. The introduction of ATs didn't introduce classes into the game; it introduced more classes into the game.
FFs can't take any option they want. There are a wide variety of enemy-only abilities that FFs do not have access to, for example. More importantly, FFs have to obey tier requirements and such.
I shouldn't have to support a claim that is common sense (even people on your side of the argument in this thread have referred to FF as a class), but if you insist, let's go look up a definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_class
a common method of arbitrating the capabilities of different game characters...A character class aggregates several abilities and aptitudes
FF qualifies. But even if you could find some way to change the definition of what a class is to suit your purposes, it wouldn't change the fact that your argument is nonsensical. You are literally arguing that intentional imbalance is balanced. Such a position is absurd, and all you have to support it are red herrings.
Perhaps you should try reading the complete article before making your baseless claims. The very same article you are trying to use to justify your claim also expressly identifies classless games.
Also, lets take a look at the full quote that you truncated:
In role-playing games (RPG), a common method of arbitrating the capabilities of different game characters is to assign each one to a character class. A character class aggregates several abilities and aptitudes, and may also detail aspects of background and social standing, or impose behavior restrictions. Classes may be considered to represent archetypes, or specific careers.
Well the first part is actually unrelated to the definition, it's a mere quantification. The next line is a generalization not a definition. And then the third line that you left off entirely is a usage example. Wikipedia really is a terrible source for definitions.
Balance is determined by the presence or absence of mechanical advantages. Opinion and developer intent do not enter into it. The very idea that they could is absurd. If opinion mattered in balance, then balance discussions would be impossible. And as for developer intent, well, I've already went over why that's a dishonest argument (people disagree with the developer's intent all the time for balance reasons). Moreover, it's unlikely that the development team would have a unified view of what the game should be to begin with (and even if they did, it can and has changed over time).
Developer intent very well does factor into balance. It's not the only factor, but it is a factor. Mechanics can say "this is imbalanced" but it is the developers intent on how a power should function that ultimately determines how said balance is achieved. If you balance purely on mechanics then every thing ends up identical. If a power is intended to be a heavy hitting power with a short or no CD, then it may get balanced through having it's power cost increased and/or it's activation time increased. If the balance issue with that same power was that it's damage scaled up too fast, then it might have it's base damage reduced with an innate damage multiplier to reduce the rate that it scales while leaving the minimum damage alone.
The game is less balanced than it was before. That is a fact. You may consider it a positive thing in this particular case, and you are entitled to that opinion. That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm pointing out, though.
The game is far more balanced than it was before. The DR bug resulted in a situation where 1+1 = 3 if you played an AT. You've made it very clear that you don't actually want balance. You want ATs to have an innate advantage. advantages do not equate balance. The only reason why ATs are not able to be properly balanced to FFs in their current state is because FFs can have more powers. If ATs are given 2 more powers to bring them up to the 14 powers that FFs get then balance can be achieved. With those 2 extra powers they can insure that all ATs have a self heal, a self buff (AO or AD), a block replacer, a lunge (for melee ATs), a threat wipe (for DPS ATs), etc... Most ATs are only missing 1 of those items, and a few are missing 2, but none are missing more than 2.
Developer intent very well does factor into balance. It's not the only factor, but it is a factor. Mechanics can say "this is imbalanced" but it is the developers intent on how a power should function that ultimately determines how said balance is achieved. If you balance purely on mechanics then every thing ends up identical. If a power is intended to be a heavy hitting power with a short or no CD, then it may get balanced through having it's power cost increased and/or it's activation time increased. If the balance issue with that same power was that it's damage scaled up too fast, then it might have it's base damage reduced with an innate damage multiplier to reduce the rate that it scales while leaving the minimum damage alone.
PEter Olotka(the creator of the popular boardgame Cosmic Encounter) has often said that he doesn't try to balance things be making them equal, but by making them gamebreakingly broken in different ways.
AT's are actually good if your just a casual player who pops in now and again. Earning the sets and having a armadillo set mixed with one of the other two (based on your damage type) will also serve you well for this too. By the time you are leveled, you would probably have enough Q saved up from alert dailys to get both sets if you havent already.
But if your serious about teamups for events, cosmics and adventure packs, it would be best to work out a FF and gear them up well. Mercenary set with all 7's will serve you well tbh. but there are better sets to be had for hardcore gamers.
Courage is doing what is right even when it isn't popular or safe. Honor is retaining the dignity and virtue in one's self, so it can light the way for others in the darkest of times. Compassion is showing patience and mercy towards others, even when it isn't returned or deserved. A hero is defined by these 3 words, they set him apart from others as a beacon of hope and excellence.
It does, but only for the people who have oodles of knowledge, already acquired massive stacks of resources, and who are willing/enthusiastic enough to play awful content like Onslaught in order to get that gear.
That's just not true. Even if it was, all it takes is a quick "Hey guys can I get some tips?" to acquire the oodles. Not really a big climb. I've already proven that gear doesn't make a big different in regards to stuff you can buy off the AH for cheap vs stuff you have to grind for.
Classless systems, despite the name, aren't actually classless. They simply have one single class to which every player belongs. In this way, class is removed as a factor.
Hence why it is referred to as a classless system. It's common sense really. As is the fact that developer intent factors heavily into what "balanced" means for a game. After all, you still haven't identified the source of this "universal balance" you keep claiming exists.
Universal balance where all options have flaws and strengths. Currently the Freeform has no flaws. And the AT has no true advantages it did previously. So they broke it this so called balance or at least this is how I feel about this discussion.
And that applies among ATs. However, because the intent is that FFs both are a bit better than ATs and players can design the strengths and weaknesses of FFs themselves, it means that your concept does not apply between FFs and ATs. See, that's how developer intent shapes what "balanced" means in a game.
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't take any specifics into account, and that's a flaw because not all games are the same. Once you acknowledge the specifics, one of which is developer intent, then you realize that "all options have flaws and strengths" is in fact already being applied to the game - but in a way that makes sense for the game. All options are equal, within their respective areas.
It isn't necessary for ATs to compete with FFs in endgame content. Different abilities and classes excel in different situations, and there's nothing wrong with that, so long as there is content where there is a corresponding advantage.
Well... unfortunately as an AT player you are in competition with other players for roles during team content, and the strong advantages certain FF types have (tanks, esp) over ATs make many of the latter almost redundant. An experienced FF player may take a Tank AT into a Rampage, QZone or Cosmic for the extra challenge or lolz with their buddies but if anyone else tries it they'll either cause a walkout (still very much a thing in PUG content) or get shoved into an "inadequate dps" role and get told they'd be better off playing another character or getting out of the way. So why play that character at all, even if it was fun to level?
That's just not true. Even if it was, all it takes is a quick "Hey guys can I get some tips?" to acquire the oodles. Not really a big climb. I've already proven that gear doesn't make a big different in regards to stuff you can buy off the AH for cheap vs stuff you have to grind for.
It's all marginal gains, and if you add those up you get the Gold while others aren't on the podium. Build potential, the additional range of choices and their synergies with high-end gear make the difference which puts most FF characters out of sight of the average AT; things like the Unleashed's extreme damage are just the occasional quirks of power implementation, not the rule (being polite, there).
Comments
Even if ATs need some more help now, that should be done in a way that helps all ATs (like making sure they have proper builds), not just one subset due to some random bug.
Some of the changes doesn't seem to need changing at all and some are out right nerf (Blades and Soldiers comes into mind). On top of that, the bug is still prevalent in many ATs.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
I'm not arguing that balance doesn't matter. I'm saying that it does matter. But balance demands a niche for every class. By claiming otherwise, you are effectively arguing that balance doesn't matter, whether you realize it or not.
Mechanics do indeed define what is good balance. What you're failing to recognize is that design intent is not the same as mechanics.
FYI - FFs have access to the exact same niches, so on the topic of niches, FFs and ATs are equal.
PS - don't bother trying to do that thing where you try to tell people what their argument is, nobody's biting. Nobody here is accidentally arguing that balance is a bad thing, and that's quite frankly an insulting assertion to make.
Of course it's not, how can intent, which is a thought process, be the same thing as game mechanics, which are a set of rules? Were you under the impression that anybody was making the argument that they're the same thing?
The relation between the two is that intent determines the form the mechanics take, and the mechanics in turn define what balance is based on how they need to function for the game to have the intended dynamic.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Try "balancing" the ATs against the multitude of possible power and stat combinations found in FF builds. Go ahead, detail out this magnificent plan to make sure the ATs can somehow be made on par with all those FF combinations to achieve this idealistic "balance" between ATs and FF.
Here, I'll answer for you. It's simply not possible. Balancing is very possible between preset archetype classes that have predetermined power and stat frameworks, because they'll always be constant against each other with very little variance. FFs on the other hand are so dynamically diverse that as a MMORPG game development studio you'd have to have either too much resources on hand, all the free time in the world, or to be absolutely nuts to try to balance FFs against ATs.
I mean, if you're going to entirely disregard the facts to do with the game using FF as a selling point and making ATs on par with FF balance wise being counter-intuitive to that, and call developer intent "dishonest", then by all means, show exactly how you know better than them on how to run things...
...or simply stop yakking about something you clearly don't seem to understand.
FYI - FFs have access to the exact same niches, so on the topic of niches, FFs and ATs are equal. Of course it's not, how can intent, which is a thought process, be the same thing as game mechanics, which are a set of rules? Were you under the impression that anybody was making the argument that they're the same thing?
The relation between the two is that intent determines the form the mechanics take, and the mechanics in turn define what balance is based on how they need to function for the game to have the intended dynamic.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
There are great reasons to play ATs.
1. They are free
2. You don't have to worry about or learn how to build an effective FF....if you know how then sure you can make a higher performance FF. But if you don't know how then you can also definitely make a worse FF.
Do subscribers that are knowledgeable about FF power synergies need a reason to play an AT over an FF? I don't think so.
PARSER USAGE GUIDE: click here for an easy how-to ٩(๑･ิᴗ･ิ)۶٩(･ิᴗ･ิ๑)۶
Spectre beats Eido in an SG run: VIDEO HERE
SIGNATURE:
Used to be coach on the forums. Still @coach in game.
That's a really good specific way to ask the question.. I'm gonna put that in the op.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
I don't really think they should be more powerful than FFs, but they should be competitive enough so it feels fair. the greatness of FF is choices, not being actually superior and not being able to compete with a regular AT.
I think all ATs should be streamlined and put into similar power levels, and comparable with a FF but not anything over that. and I say that as a AT player.
SIGNATURE:
Used to be coach on the forums. Still @coach in game.
Arc quests reward you with a varried amount of points and on a good day you could get around 300 points... 10 points = 1 zen so the 4k Zen for a freeform (not on sale) requires 40k points. IF you managed to get 300 points per day that would take you 134 days to earn a freeform from quests. On average however you'll usually get about 200 points per day which totals out to 200 days per slot...
and then Freeforms through Questionite requires around 1.72M Q. Silvers can refine 8k Q per day, so assuming that you earned 8k+ Q per day it would take you 2,16 days to earn the required 1.72M Q to exchange for 4k Zen...
So... we can all safely say that Freeforms are NOT FREE! You either pay $40 (not on sale), or spend 6 months doing Arc quests or Farming Q... or 3 months doing both simultaneously...
but i always saw the ats as a bowie knife, and a freeform as the swiss army knife. that at might do a ton of damage, but it'll never hang with a freeform for versatility and survival. both have a valid place.
RIP Caine
It's a silly point anyway. A class is a predefined set of options a character can choose from. Any game that involves character customization has them by definition. A classless system is simply one where everyone has the same class, thereby removing class as a factor. That's why a game cannot be "partially class-based".
If a FF can do the same things as a given AT only better, then the given AT does not have a niche.
You argued that the game was intended to have a tiered character system, and that that was therefore balanced. The second part is absurd, because by that logic, any game operating according to developer intent would be balanced by definition, including a 1v1 game where player 2 wins automatically because that's what the developer intended. Intent has no impact on balance, period. Grind time isn't relevant to a balance discussion. Heck, monetary cost isn't even relevant to a balance discussion. The thing that people don't seem to be grasping here is that a game that is unbalanced by design is still an unbalanced game. It is remarkable the sorts of mental gymnastics people will undergo to attempt to dodge this simple fact.
You want to invalidate monetary business elements, you want to invalidate grind times, then show this brilliant plan on how balance between FF and AT can be achieved and how it actually makes things better for both the players' gaming experience and how it makes things more profitable for the company.
You seem to be missing the point here. You have to actually back this claim up - simply restating the claim doesn't count. As far as I can tell you've got nothing on this, and others have given solid points against it, so I humbly await your counterclaim on this matter. Feel free to simply restate the claim, but that won't convince anyone. Before ATs existed, everyone was Freeform - hence a classless system by your own definition. Once ATs were introduced, it introduced a class-based system into the game. However, the classless system that existed before was still present. Hence, partially class-based. Doesn't seem so silly when I back it up with substantial reasoning doesn't it?
Also, Freeforms don't have a predefined set of options a character can choose from - they have all the options in the game. You could claim this is "predefined" as in "well we predefined that they get access to everything!" but then you've completely lost any meaning regarding the use of the word predefined since that isn't very defined - it'd be like claiming you can drive wherever you want as a predefined route. Again, your own definition supports my claim. It's not absurd at all. There is no universal authority on balance - balance is what it was intended to be by the developer. A game where player 2 wins automatically might not be very popular, but it is balanced according to the intent of those who made it. You might want to claim otherwise, but you're not really an authority on their game - your take on the game's balance is an opinion, while theirs was the driving force behind the entire games design.
Also, there are games out right now where you will see 1v1 confrontations between players where one player has a significant advantage over the other player. Some of them are quite popular in fact, raking in millions of dollars in revenue. Look up "Asymmetrical Balance" for an explanation of why these types of games work.
People are pointing out the amount of grind time and monetary cost in order to counter your claim that "FF is free!". They did so very well and it's clear you have nothing to come back at them with. After all, if cost/time was irrelevant then why was it relevant for you to claim that they were free?
You're not grasping the fact that your opinion of what makes a game balanced is not universal, 'and also of the fact that you have to back up the claim that a game is unbalanced rather than simply repeated that claim over and over. As far as mental gymnastics, you've been going for the gold so don't bother trying to point that finger at anyone else - most people debating with you have simply been pointing out facts such as developer intent, the game's history, and the observable differences between this game and others, while you've been trying to claim that your opinion outranks that of the people who made the game and have tried to draw comparisons between systems which share almost nothing in common.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Yes. But the intended experience probably didn't have that level of gear creep in it, either. If you don't have 600 in a stat it works a little differently.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
SIGNATURE:
Used to be coach on the forums. Still @coach in game.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
It wouldn't, since the gear which made the DR bug Suddenly Very Urgent And In Need Of A Fix wasn't in the game at the time it was (mostly) written.
CO's intended experience is a beautiful rainbow of diversity! \o/
It is. Generally a good thing, occasionally a problem, since it does allow for those "Stick Swinging Boy vs Galactus" moments generally avoided by sensible comic editors. From my point of view ( where the intended experience is Silver Age comics) then many ATs, run with standard gear, in normal content, hit the spot quite nicely. And that (in relation to the question in the OP) was all I came to say.
Yeah, that's why I'm glad we got the new content that's tuned to provide that experience with current gear.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Many of us make characters that don't load up on heals, ADs, AOs, or cheese. If we did then all of us Altoholics would be non-existent... there is no fun in repeating the same build a dozen times. me personally, I don't take ADs on my DPS builds and the only time I have 2 ADs is if I'm using PFF as my passive on a tank. Sure I try to include a heal on everyone, but not everyone gets a solid heal, some have far less reliable self-healing options because they fit their theme better.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
I think there should be a clear tier system for the classes.
Free ATs - Should be good enough to do Alerts and contribute to Adventure packs. They should be (primarily) team reliant. Think sidekicks, street heroes, or teen superheros and the like. Participating in Cosmics are only achievable with intense focus and dedication. Think of any team focused comic book hero that if they were on their own, would probably get their butts kicked versus the BIG BAD. Killing mooks is more their thing and they are good at it.
Paid for ATs - Pro heroes, the big leagues, they can contribute to Cosmics just fine, pretty much carry Alerts, and have the tools so solo an Adventure pack if they want too (even though some of those take FOREVER!) These are your heroes that started in a SG but eventually were given their own dedicated or one shot comic book.
Free Forms - (Gimping your build aside.) These are the Planet-Crackers and Paragons of superhero-dom. They should be on the front line and the "Class" everyone aspires to be. These were the Heroes that had their own comic book first, but only sided with a SG for story reasons. With proper knowledge and skill these guys should be able to handle any and all content on their own, with the exception of Cosmics, but they remain the top contributors, end game wise, in whatever role they chose.
Silver AT = Team orientated heroes. Sidekicks. Supporting cast. Would get trashed by the Big Bad on their own. Only stars in a team comic book, is in a bad TV show. Usually part of some trope, might even be color coordinated. Wants to be a break out character, cant get enough fans. Kids still want to be the red one, but you all cant be the red one. Character building is limited to a hand full of either/or choices = Free
Premium AT = Protects the city, does most things solo, teams up versus the big bad. Does get their own solo comic book series from time to time, but mostly known as a leading role in a comic book team. Has had at least 2 successful seasons in a TV show before everything went to crud, then they started teaming up to remain relevant. Character building has a LOT more either/or choices = You pay for it.
Freeform A = Planet-cracker, the flagship superhero. Started with their own comic book, the BAD has to be TOO BIG in order to warrant a team up. Shows up in graphic novels a lot, comic book geeks will know who they are, say they are on par with the mainstream heroes, no one cares. Probably won some obscure award for best written comic no one has read. Has some killer straight to video releases, maybe a "Netvidz Original." Show gets cancelled for not selling merch for some reason, but people love the character regardless. Has the most kickstarters and gofundmes to get thier show put back on the air AGAIN. Companies ignore them. Character building has all choices opened but really not a ton of cosmetic control. = You pay your 50 bucks. Or get lucky and get one for half price or free like I did.
Freeform B = Planet-cracker, the box office superhero. Started with their own comic book, probably has a movie franchise and some other popular merch. Their names are plastered everywhere. Overhyped. Had TV shows, movies, cartoons, flash videos, fanfics, and more. We get sick of seeing their origin stories over and over again. We still buy their t-shirts, posters and all that other junk. Little timmy just got on board the hype train and will claim he knows more about the character than you do because he read this one wiki page. So many cosplay and alternative cosplay, multiverse cosplays and more. Even ends up in the news because of some marketing ploy controversy. The BAD has to be TOO BIG in order to warrant a team up, or if the cash is right and it will push more merch. Character building has all choices opened and full cosmetic control = You pay monthly for it.
How is that job as Trump's Press Secretary panning out, spinny?
Yeah, that's why I'm glad we got the new content that's tuned to provide that experience with current gear.
It does, but only for the people who have oodles of knowledge, already acquired massive stacks of resources, and who are willing/enthusiastic enough to play awful content like Onslaught in order to get that gear. And great if you do - enjoy that content. But otherwise I think the ladder up from levelling content to Cosmics/TA is very, very steep and doesn't have a lot of steps along the way, leading to jumps that are too big for many AT players to make while still remaining fun to play. Hopefully all the work they're doing with queueable Lairs and Crises will make a difference, although it would be nice to have some of the options we have with PvP - AT only queues, for example - or some post 40 measure of power to help make team-building more equal and fun.
It isn't necessary for ATs to compete with FFs in endgame content. Different abilities and classes excel in different situations, and there's nothing wrong with that, so long as there is content where there is a corresponding advantage. As a rough example, if FFs had an inherent +50% damage resistance vs Cosmics and ATs had +50% damage resistance vs Nemeses, that would be acceptable. The numbers wouldn't even need to be the same. At no point have I expressed interest in invalidating anything, though I'm sure you'll try to argue otherwise.
Balance existed in some form before the patch, because both ATs and FFs possessed advantages over each other. In addition, in the long forgotten past back when PvP wasn't dead, ATs had the advantage of being able to enter AT-specific matches. Hypothetically, if ATs were to be given some new AT-specific advantage tomorrow, balance could be re-established, without threatening the overall mechanical dominance of FFs (in much the same way that birds can fly, but that doesn't stop mammals from occupying and dominating many, many more ecological niches than they do). Some claimed FFs cost money. I pointed out that they did not have to. It doesn't affect balance either way.
Classless systems, despite the name, aren't actually classless. They simply have one single class to which every player belongs. In this way, class is removed as a factor. The introduction of ATs didn't introduce classes into the game; it introduced more classes into the game.
FFs can't take any option they want. There are a wide variety of enemy-only abilities that FFs do not have access to, for example. More importantly, FFs have to obey tier requirements and such.
I shouldn't have to support a claim that is common sense (even people on your side of the argument in this thread have referred to FF as a class), but if you insist, let's go look up a definition: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_class[/url]
[quote]a common method of arbitrating the capabilities of different game characters...A character class aggregates several abilities and aptitudes[/quote]
FF qualifies. But even if you could find some way to change the definition of what a class is to suit your purposes, it wouldn't change the fact that your argument is nonsensical. You are literally arguing that intentional imbalance is balanced. Such a position is absurd, and all you have to support it are red herrings.
Balance is determined by the presence or absence of mechanical advantages. Opinion and developer intent do not enter into it. The very idea that they could is absurd. If opinion mattered in balance, then balance discussions would be impossible. And as for developer intent, well, I've already went over why that's a dishonest argument (people disagree with the developer's intent all the time for balance reasons). Moreover, it's unlikely that the development team would have a unified view of what the game should be to begin with (and even if they did, it can and has changed over time).
The game is less balanced than it was before. That is a fact. You may consider it a positive thing in this particular case, and you are entitled to that opinion. That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm pointing out, though.
The ATs that have had recent balance passes or recently released are closer to well-built FFs, and only because the player base had a direct hand in their development this time around.[/quote]
Actually, it is necessary for ATs to compete with FF in endgame. Is it nessesary for them to have an edge in endgame? No. But it is necessary for them to be able to compete. It is a sign of bad design if you introduce classes to a game that cannot compete in the endgame content of a game.
Giving either side a direct advantage is NOT balance. Balance between ATs and FFs can be achieved by simply giving ATs the full number of available powers, and continuing the trend of allowing the player base to influence the design of new ATs and passes on existing ATs to give them more reliable builds.
Actually, the claims were that FF are paid content. And they are. You either pay for them with cash or you pay for them with time. Either way they have a large investment cost, $20-$40 each or 3-6 months each to buy them outright, and the discounted price even has a time investment of it's own.
Perhaps you should try reading the complete article before making your baseless claims. The very same article you are trying to use to justify your claim also expressly identifies classless games.
Also, lets take a look at the full quote that you truncated: Well the first part is actually unrelated to the definition, it's a mere quantification. The next line is a generalization not a definition. And then the third line that you left off entirely is a usage example. Wikipedia really is a terrible source for definitions.
Developer intent very well does factor into balance. It's not the only factor, but it is a factor. Mechanics can say "this is imbalanced" but it is the developers intent on how a power should function that ultimately determines how said balance is achieved. If you balance purely on mechanics then every thing ends up identical. If a power is intended to be a heavy hitting power with a short or no CD, then it may get balanced through having it's power cost increased and/or it's activation time increased. If the balance issue with that same power was that it's damage scaled up too fast, then it might have it's base damage reduced with an innate damage multiplier to reduce the rate that it scales while leaving the minimum damage alone.
The game is far more balanced than it was before. The DR bug resulted in a situation where 1+1 = 3 if you played an AT. You've made it very clear that you don't actually want balance. You want ATs to have an innate advantage. advantages do not equate balance. The only reason why ATs are not able to be properly balanced to FFs in their current state is because FFs can have more powers. If ATs are given 2 more powers to bring them up to the 14 powers that FFs get then balance can be achieved. With those 2 extra powers they can insure that all ATs have a self heal, a self buff (AO or AD), a block replacer, a lunge (for melee ATs), a threat wipe (for DPS ATs), etc... Most ATs are only missing 1 of those items, and a few are missing 2, but none are missing more than 2.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
But if your serious about teamups for events, cosmics and adventure packs, it would be best to work out a FF and gear them up well. Mercenary set with all 7's will serve you well tbh. but there are better sets to be had for hardcore gamers.
Courage is doing what is right even when it isn't popular or safe. Honor is retaining the dignity and virtue in one's self, so it can light the way for others in the darkest of times. Compassion is showing patience and mercy towards others, even when it isn't returned or deserved. A hero is defined by these 3 words, they set him apart from others as a beacon of hope and excellence.
Hence why it is referred to as a classless system. It's common sense really. As is the fact that developer intent factors heavily into what "balanced" means for a game. After all, you still haven't identified the source of this "universal balance" you keep claiming exists.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't take any specifics into account, and that's a flaw because not all games are the same. Once you acknowledge the specifics, one of which is developer intent, then you realize that "all options have flaws and strengths" is in fact already being applied to the game - but in a way that makes sense for the game. All options are equal, within their respective areas.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Well... unfortunately as an AT player you are in competition with other players for roles during team content, and the strong advantages certain FF types have (tanks, esp) over ATs make many of the latter almost redundant. An experienced FF player may take a Tank AT into a Rampage, QZone or Cosmic for the extra challenge or lolz with their buddies but if anyone else tries it they'll either cause a walkout (still very much a thing in PUG content) or get shoved into an "inadequate dps" role and get told they'd be better off playing another character or getting out of the way. So why play that character at all, even if it was fun to level?
That's just not true. Even if it was, all it takes is a quick "Hey guys can I get some tips?" to acquire the oodles. Not really a big climb. I've already proven that gear doesn't make a big different in regards to stuff you can buy off the AH for cheap vs stuff you have to grind for.
It's all marginal gains, and if you add those up you get the Gold while others aren't on the podium. Build potential, the additional range of choices and their synergies with high-end gear make the difference which puts most FF characters out of sight of the average AT; things like the Unleashed's extreme damage are just the occasional quirks of power implementation, not the rule (being polite, there).
PARSER USAGE GUIDE: click here for an easy how-to ٩(๑･ิᴗ･ิ)۶٩(･ิᴗ･ิ๑)۶
Spectre beats Eido in an SG run: VIDEO HERE