I still don't get why someone would limit themselves for the sake of an icon. It's fine that they do of course, but they have to accept that that limitation is self-imposed and not a fault of the game. They even took all the VFX off of passives/forms to make them theme-neutral.
The passive VFX change was one of my favorite things they've ever done with the game. I could finally take super-OP arcane clarty and not have a blurry magic thing on my forehead. (But seriously, that was a terrific change with zero drawbacks.)
Though, of course, some people will consider things like forms, passives, self heals, etc, to be thematic for their purposes. So, sometimes something you'd think could fit in most builds won't fit into a person's theme.
I still don't get why someone would limit themselves for the sake of an icon. It's fine that they do of course, but they have to accept that that limitation is self-imposed and not a fault of the game. They even took all the VFX off of passives/forms to make them theme-neutral.
I have a character named Phantasma whose theme is "making her enemies miserable with ribbons" so she uses a lot of powers that make "ribbons" of energy.
most of what am about to say is what some of you are slowly starting to get...
begin rant!
group 1: "i build around a theme and blah blah"
group 2: "i build around a theme too but i don't blah blah"
YOU BOTH ARE BOZOS
every single bum that plays this game has a theme
the pvper who wants to leave everyone rekt and min max... that is a theme
the blackredder... yeah that is a theme too
even the doofus who doesn't understand the difference between copyright infringement and homage... is a theme sadly
here's the thing, these are the two groups in a general view:
Group 1's definition of theme: visual appeal + whatever their head cannon (and that is usually IT)
Group 2's definition of theme: everything in Group 1 + mechanical / synergy appeal
to further elaborate, here's a group 1's example:
biiiiig huuuuuuge strong dumbo that uses invuln+enrage because he supposed to be super strong and tough and ANGRY
but uses something like pistols to fight...
Group 2 is usually gonna have a fit when they see that
bottom line: theme is not the issue... it never WAS the issue
mechanical / synergy that supports a wide array of themes is the issue and that is limited by what is available from the game and whatever group 2 buildmasters can cook up (and group 2 does have some very good builders right here in this thread)
stop being bozos and arguing about theme (BOTH GROUPS) and instead of playing heroes in a game, be actual heroes by:
1) asking for mechanical / synergy help to make your theme work, if you wanna do harder content
2) providing mechanical / synergy help with absolute minimum power replacement (keep input concise)
(yes some of you do all that but this is for those who can't get past the theme detour roadblock)
theme is just a distraction from the actual issue, because themes are just way too much fun
P.S.: I mostly fall under group 1 category >.>
Well, yeah, hence why I said at one point that everyone had a different view on what makes a theme. Some people build their theme while keeping viability in mind, others do not. Those that keep viability in mind get confused by the others simply because they are thinking to much about game mechanics. Truth is, the group that builds for fun, still has viable builds. And instead of complainig about people that don't want a certain power/spec tree/advantage/etc because it doesn't fit their theme they should isntead start thinking outside of the box they put themselves in and help find something that does fit the theme and still allows them to be viable. Is that always possible? No, but, more often than not, people who are strict about their theme, will recognize the fact that they have no choice but to take something they did not want. Meanwhile, the group that builds in themes with viability in mind, will never understand that way of thinking. For they are to busy playing the game instead of playing heroes (focusing on mechanics instead of having fun). Does that mean they don't have fun? I'm sure they do, but, when someone comes along with a playstyle different than theirs they tend to get confused.
In reality, instead of assuming only their way is the right way, they need to understand, there is multiple ways to play the game and they need to recognize that. Everyone has a different play style and idea of what makes a theme a theme. And in this, in truth, no one is right or wrong.
Group 2 is usually gonna have a fit when they see that
[/spoiler]
You had me until this part. Group 2 generally doesn't care what group 1 does in regards to building. It's certain members of group 1 who have a fit when their musclegunman gets knocked over because of their choices and then they try to blame the game for what they did. Then group 2 comes along and says "Well you shouldn'ta done that" and then group 1 says "You just don't understand me!" and that goes around in circles for a bit.
Also Group 1 is the group that always tries to argue what theme is/isn't. Group 2 generally agrees that theme is whatever you want it to be, hence it's too subjective to be used as an excuse for failure.
Group 2 is usually gonna have a fit when they see that
clarification: mebe shoulda worded it better buuuut here what i meant:
fit as in, "WHY you do that?" and "of course you gonna do piddly dmg" and not a rage fit >.>
Also Group 1 is the group that always tries to argue what theme is/isn't. Group 2 generally agrees that theme is whatever you want it to be, hence it's too subjective to be used as an excuse for failure.
was annoyed by both groups >.<
my annoyance is pmuch that: the focus on theme alone as the center of the argument when the issue is either no ingame synergy available for that theme OR being unable to form a synergy and NOT asking for help with sorting of synergy when that player wants to take part in harder stuff
my other issue from seeing this argument crop up in way too many threads is that sometimes group 2 folk get carried away on the synergy / mechanical focus (from group 1's perspective) which is not the case (from group 2's perspective) ... is why i noted that feedback should be concise and not a huge draft >.> that can get overwhelming for those in group 1 who are very skittish about the mechanics in the first place
in short:
group 1 that wants to do harder content should be more open to asking for help w/ the mechanics
group 2 that wants to halp should keep in mind not to overdump knowledge and make sure they have a grasp of the 'feel' of group 1's chara
and there needs to be a whole lot less resentment and mud slinging between the two groups >.<
Group 2 is usually gonna have a fit when they see that
clarification: mebe shoulda worded it better buuuut here what i meant:
fit as in, "WHY you do that?" and "of course you gonna do piddly dmg" and not a rage fit >.>
Also Group 1 is the group that always tries to argue what theme is/isn't. Group 2 generally agrees that theme is whatever you want it to be, hence it's too subjective to be used as an excuse for failure.
was annoyed by both groups >.<
my annoyance is pmuch that: the focus on theme alone as the center of the argument when the issue is either no ingame synergy available for that theme OR being unable to form a synergy and NOT asking for help with sorting of synergy when that player wants to take part in harder stuff
my other issue from seeing this argument crop up in way too many threads is that sometimes group 2 folk get carried away on the synergy / mechanical focus (from group 1's perspective) which is not the case (from group 2's perspective) ... is why i noted that feedback should be concise and not a huge draft >.> that can get overwhelming for those in group 1 who are very skittish about the mechanics in the first place
in short:
group 1 that wants to do harder content should be more open to asking for help w/ the mechanics
group 2 that wants to halp should keep in mind not to overdump knowledge and make sure they have a grasp of the 'feel' of group 1's chara
and there needs to be a whole lot less resentment and mud slinging between the two groups >.<
This is true. very much true. Hence why I may have been coming off a little strong in some of my posts. I felt that those in group 2 where obilivious to what people like me were meaning or wanting and were instead focusing to much on making the character viable.
As for helping someone pick a power that seems out of place in their theme. You have to think outside the box. For example, let's go back to my elemental mage. For the EU I used Gegedttering's MSA, which, as everyone knows, activates whenever a power comes off of cool down. Now, if we look at the icon and the name, neither fit my theme at all...yet, it does actually fit my theme, as long as you ignore the name and icon. Here is why: When my character's more powerful spells rebuild themselvs in their head they fill them with power.
See, I twisted a EU that has a very tech based name and icon into something that works for magic as well. This is further enhanced with my mage having Int primary and the EU going off of Int.
See, instead of just choosing a power because it would fix a problem. You need to also come up with a reason it would fit the theme. This would help dampen the entire "muh theme" complaint. Many powers are theme neutral, even if at first glance they might not seem like it. Thus, you got to figure out a way to....well...trick the person into thinking it fits. It is like stats in DnD, using a tomato as a base: Strength is how hard you can smash the tomato, Dexterity is for how accurately you can throw the tomato, Constitution is to see if you can survive eating a rotten tomato, Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, Wisdom is knowing to not put a tomato in a fruit salad, and Charisma (a strong stat in 5th Ed DnD know) is convincing a person to eat a fruit salad you made using tomatos.
See, instead of just choosing a power because it would fix a problem. You need to also come up with a reason it would fit the theme. This would help dampen the entire "muh theme" complaint. Many powers are theme neutral, even if at first glance they might not seem like it. Thus, you got to figure out a way to....well...trick the person into thinking it fits.
this thing seems helpful; group 1 has a very quick knee-jerk reaction (AM SPEAKING IN GENERAL) to anything remotely that might seem off theme so yeah >.>
luckily we have awesim build gurus all over the forum and even tho i don't understand all the mechanics i can usually find a way to twist the myriad of suggestions that fit my theme
My general feeling about people who build ineffective theme builds by not thinking about effectiveness are fine as long as they don't expect to be effective.
It really doesn’t matter what people consider theme or not.
If you know how to build, then you can make a decent theme build (with one or 600 diff frameworks)
Now you are often faced with making hard choices like “damn i want this but i need that” which may make you rethink your whole build and twist it around but you can usually come up with something good, people tell me my munitions/laser sword/ dual sword build wont work... shes got top score with it on cosmics. Same with lightning/guns/force/fire
Or my enrage haymaker/heavy weapons/martial arts dodge tank which has solo tanked every cosmic including eidolon
I also have toons using only one framework, like my tk blades user.
Ofc tho its not all about knowledge some people dont mind sacrificing a bit of effectiveness for their character to be more fun for them or whatever reason, as a roleplayer, creative writer and theme builder myself I understand that.
And wether u follow one framework or many, wether ur theme or not, u can have a weak build and a good one.
So we should really stop arguing about this. We understand theme, we get it
And i get why wardicator was so good for aopm i mean every pvper and their mom had it, and i have some friends who liked those type of builds for soloing or simply for providing dps while being able to heal at same time etc etc And i can see why people pick aopm often for theme the whole jack of all trades allows for doing multiple things easily. And it created some synergy between certain things.
But take this opportunity to learn more and explore more options, passives or if u dint want to drop aopm there is other good specs not just wardicator loop, so explore and learn wether u do this by yourself or ask an experienced player to help you out or you and your friends test things and compare notes or make a build for u i mean thats how i learned people gave mebuilds and explained how they work. And lots of testing. They would make me test lol
Months ago when kaiserin said wardicator loop would be fixed me and my girlfriend and plenty of other friends were already testing good alternatives for it. Do not let this ruin ur fun do not be afraid to ask for help and dont be afraid to play your theme, imo a build is not good if you do not have fun with it, (quote stolen from a certain pupper owo),what do i mean by this? I prefer to have a fun build with my themes and stuff rather than what gets me top in a cosmic. Which doesnt mean you cant have both, cause you certainly can
Also, wardicator has been proven to still be viable its just harder to make it work now and it sucks i liked the loop myself but it was needed and i accept it and we must adapt.
Edit: i dont take full credit for my builds, I had help from friends theyd help me with the build and/or help me test things, compare notes, give advice, explain how certain things work and id do the same for them thats how we do stuffs
The point of game balance depends on what you're balancing for. It's not actually possible to make all options viable unless options become meaningless, people can always shoot themselves in the feet, but the usual objective is some combination of two (somewhat conflicting) choices:
There should be multiple viable builds.
It should be possible to make meaningful choices.
So now nobody's build qualifies as "themed" unless it uses more than one framework?
I can not talk that precise. Obviously it is themed. Theme is whatever you want. But the quotation marks are to signify how obviously if someone complains their theme was not supported by the game they are specifically speaking of unsupported themes.
And that is the core of the issue. You even said it yourself:
Here's a build that picks from 3 frameworks. It's themed themey theme is "Conjurer". This is also an example of a build that was directly enabled by the changes the current team have made to frameworks.
It works well because of synergies that were built in. An open power system can possibly create emergent themes of thousands of combination possibilities... but this philosophy of framework priority tends to make every synergy prescribed.
In one sense that reduces developer work since emergent builds can possibly be overpowered, but in the other direction it reduces the possible content per development dollar. The usual theme park or sandbox.
This was less of a problem before the form system got increasingly finicky, and after the prescriptive 'recommended stats' philosophy was dropped during F2P conversion, which was probably the single best Champions update ever. Earth powers released, I believe, before form standardization.
The lack of a viable form or role for melee / distance is the big culprit. Along with energy unlocks.
Kaiser Behemoth: Might/Earth/Lightning
Griever: Lightning/Wind/Force
Madeen: Telepathy/Telekinetic/Sorcery
Belphegor: Might/Fighting Claws/Bestial/Unarmed/"Chains" if that counts as a different powerframe
I'm guessing the electric is sparkstorm/neuroelectric, which is a great combination for an enrage build, but not the typical performance of distance / melee. Lightning/Wind/Force are distance and can share a form and passive. Belphegor is melee. CCers and healers do not really have this issue as much because manipulator and compassion are distance agnostic, as Aesica mentioned.
Some sets do work. But some are awkward. Especially at multiple distances.
Ice and Archery do not have a melee. Wind, Force Darkness, and Sorcery have only a little, some virtually unusable. Telpathy and PA... sort of. Even Fire, Poison, and Electricity, which can synergize well in melee, are classified distance [other than Devour Essence]. Munitions, interestingly enough, has actual melee.
What I would recommend is:
Make no distinction for forms
Add a hybrid offense role that has slightly less buff but versatility, say 115%. Melee efficiency encourages risk/reward.
Add a few more abilities, especially to Ice, Darkness, Force, and Archery, that can provide utility either way like sparkstorm or sigils - knocks, bleeds, and toggle advantages help
Make Quicksand, Wall of Ice, Ice Barrier better
Add generic energy unlocks like Molecular Self Assembly or Overdrive that support charges, heals, mez, etc.
We could have skipped the entire conversation if you had just believed this all along.
Some builds are viable, some builds are not viable. Welcome to every game ever, for all of time. It will always be like this. All you have to do is make sure that the build you make for your character is viable - or not, but if you know you're making a build that isn't viable you can't use it as an excuse. Some super heroes are super man, some super heroes are robin - just don't send robin out to fight galacticus and everything will be fine.
Meanwhile, the group that builds in themes with viability in mind, will never understand that way of thinking. For they are to busy playing the game instead of playing heroes (focusing on mechanics instead of having fun). Does that mean they don't have fun? I'm sure they do, but, when someone comes along with a playstyle different than theirs they tend to get confused.
More like baffled that your concept of theme is so rigid you try to bend the game to fit it...
For example, when I made my character Phantasma I imagined her looking much like this:
The main difference was that i imagined her aura as being more white than yellow, but meh.
Meanwhile, the group that builds in themes with viability in mind, will never understand that way of thinking. For they are to busy playing the game instead of playing heroes (focusing on mechanics instead of having fun). Does that mean they don't have fun? I'm sure they do, but, when someone comes along with a playstyle different than theirs they tend to get confused.
More like baffled that your concept of theme is so rigid you try to bend the game to fit it...
For example, when I made my character Phantasma I imagined her looking much like this:
The main difference was that i imagined her aura as being more white than yellow, but meh.
Meanwhile, the group that builds in themes with viability in mind, will never understand that way of thinking. For they are to busy playing the game instead of playing heroes (focusing on mechanics instead of having fun). Does that mean they don't have fun? I'm sure they do, but, when someone comes along with a playstyle different than theirs they tend to get confused.
Eh... you're being kinda iffy here again. Primarily the part where you're saying that people are too busy focusing on mechanics "instead of having fun". You maybe wanna clarify that part? Cause I kinda feel the need to point out that the people doing that are doing it for the explicit and exclusive purpose of having fun. Without any clarification I might think you were saying that not keeping viability in mind somehow means you're more about fun, when it could easily be argued that that just means an individual is more about appearances - like a skinny guy wearing a muscle suit.
Meanwhile, the group that builds in themes with viability in mind, will never understand that way of thinking. For they are to busy playing the game instead of playing heroes (focusing on mechanics instead of having fun). Does that mean they don't have fun? I'm sure they do, but, when someone comes along with a playstyle different than theirs they tend to get confused.
Not quite.
The only time I'd be confused, is if someone insisted on doing something which was sub optimal (mechanically speaking) and then getting angry that they were not getting the results they wanted or able to match others who have built differently within their chosen theme.
An example: AoPM Hybrid Sorcery vs Enchanter or Shadow Form RDPS Sorcery. It would be stupid of me to get angry that I couldn't DPS as well as the RDPS as AoPM...because I'm clearly not spec'd for it. (Incidentally, I just did this very switch from AoPM to Enchanter...quite happy! Just wish Enchanter had something a bit more...)
You speak about "focusing on mechanics" as if that is entirely separate to having fun and liking the character you have made. Have you never thought of using in game mechanics to convey concept? Isn't that the whole point of the powers system and the associated mechanics?
What you've said here makes it seem as if the two can never exist within the same space. I enjoy improving my characters because I love their themes...I do this...by manipulating mechanics I use to my favor...increased effectiveness = increased fun. For me.
It's fine if others don't play that way or appreciate that method, but it becomes problematic when they expect all options to be equally viable and perform as well as those who have paid attention to mechanics and have utilized them within their theme, as opposed to those with (perhaps) broader themes, who aren't interested in mechanics.
Meanwhile, the group that builds in themes with viability in mind, will never understand that way of thinking. For they are to busy playing the game instead of playing heroes (focusing on mechanics instead of having fun). Does that mean they don't have fun? I'm sure they do, but, when someone comes along with a playstyle different than theirs they tend to get confused.
Eh... you're being kinda iffy here again. Primarily the part where you're saying that people are too busy focusing on mechanics "instead of having fun". You maybe wanna clarify that part? Cause I kinda feel the need to point out that the people doing that are doing it for the explicit and exclusive purpose of having fun. Without any clarification I might think you were saying that not keeping viability in mind somehow means you're more about fun, when it could easily be argued that that just means an individual is more about appearances - like a skinny guy wearing a muscle suit.
Fair enough. I wasn't being very clear. I've seen at time people get angry at people they are trying to help, but, the other person says that the power the other wants them to take has no purpse in their theme, even though the power would help them. But, the person helping is not thinking about the person's theme and is thinking more about increasing their abilities. In short, while their heart is in the right place, the way they went about it, was not correct, at least, not in my opinion. Though, this doesn't happen that often. But, I've seen it happen.
And yes, I realize my earlier paragraph has to much generalization, for I realize that not everyone is like that. And for that I appologize.
"The only time I'd be confused, is if someone insisted on doing something which was sub optimal (mechanically speaking) and then getting angry that they were not getting the results they wanted or able to match others who have built differently within their chosen theme."
Not exactly what I was meaning. But, close enough. Just, in the opposite direction. The helper trying to insert a power that in no real way could be considered part of the character's theme. Like adding a pual pistol power because it is useful for that build even though the build is not munitions nor does the character's theme have them using dual pistols (or even one). And than the helper getting upset because the helpee doesn't want that power for it breaks their theme way to much. And yes, that was just an example, and may or may not have actually happened (the ones I seen were different).
So, again, I appologize for generalizing to much with that paragraph.
"You speak about "focusing on mechanics" as if that is entirely separate to having fun and liking the character you have made. Have you never thought of using in game mechanics to convey concept? Isn't that the whole point of the powers system and the associated mechanics?"
To answer the last question: Yes and No. The entire point of the power system was to build the hero you want to be. Mechanics when the game first came out, did not really exist as they do now, the game has come a long way. There were mechanics in the past, but, nothing like we have now. As for the second question, of course I have, I'm sure you seen my example of what I did for my elemental mage, and I'm talking about my second example, of why and how I tied MSA to the build's theme and concept.
"What you've said here makes it seem as if the two can never exist within the same space. I enjoy improving my characters because I love their themes...I do this...by manipulating mechanics I use to my favor...increased effectiveness = increased fun. For me"
If that is how I made it sound, I applogize, that was not my intent or idea.
For me, theme is what you get when you create a character without the game in mind. People who have been making superheroes since they were kids and then porting them to the game are playing the real "theme" builds.
That's not to say you can't create a theme build with the game in mind, but at that point you're just creating a game character. You can be like "This is Lightning Guy, look at all these lightning moves he has! He can shoot lightning, he can make lightning balls, he can electrify the area around him, he can teleport around in lightning flashes!" This is fine but it reads as a game character that took all the Lightning powers.
Say then that you created a character who found a magic book that had one spell in it. Let's say it's fireball. For the theme of this character, that's the only attack you're gonna take because he only has that one spell in his book. It's an extreme example, for sure, but that's the kind of thing people building around a theme face. That's why often theme builds are considered less than optimal. Most people would be like "well he knows fire magic, so let's say he twisted the spell to give himself fire wings to fly around with, and he found out how to make snakes with his fire" and so on. A theme builder wouldn't consider those things regardless of how good it could make the character because it breaks the character's theme.
"What you've said here makes it seem as if the two can never exist within the same space. I enjoy improving my characters because I love their themes...I do this...by manipulating mechanics I use to my favor...increased effectiveness = increased fun. For me"
If that is how I made it sound, I applogize, that was not my intent or idea.
Well, yes.
The character concept I originally had in mind for Tanya Wilson had her able to manipulate Earth, fire, water and ice for a wider variety of effects than are possible in-game. Also I visualized her as being able to use all of them offensively and defensively, but while theoretically possible that doesn't make for a good build. Also some of the idea I had just didn't work in game mechanics(like creating solid walls of liquid water, or storms of shuriken-sized snowflakes) But I can have her punch people so hard they pretty much fly over the horizon, use ice barriers, smack people with rocks, and create infernos.
For me, theme is what you get when you create a character without the game in mind. People who have been making superheroes since they were kids and then porting them to the game are playing the real "theme" builds.
That's not to say you can't create a theme build with the game in mind, but at that point you're just creating a game character. You can be like "This is Lightning Guy, look at all these lightning moves he has! He can shoot lightning, he can make lightning balls, he can electrify the area around him, he can teleport around in lightning flashes!" This is fine but it reads as a game character that took all the Lightning powers.
Say then that you created a character who found a magic book that had one spell in it. Let's say it's fireball. For the theme of this character, that's the only attack you're gonna take because he only has that one spell in his book. It's an extreme example, for sure, but that's the kind of thing people building around a theme face. That's why often theme builds are considered less than optimal. Most people would be like "well he knows fire magic, so let's say he twisted the spell to give himself fire wings to fly around with, and he found out how to make snakes with his fire" and so on. A theme builder wouldn't consider those things regardless of how good it could make the character because it breaks the character's theme.
This feels kinda like a strawman to me just because of how oddly laser-focused this guys character concept is. You want to build a character with ONE attack? How would this guy even be a superhero? To me the basic character concept is fundamentally flawed. It feels like the sort of thing you'd have as a character in a team book where the team is a bunch of NooB hero-wannabes and not as a superhero in his own right.
So if someone wanted me to help build this character, I'd start by asking them what abilities he has that make him worthy of being a member of the Champions. A single fireball spell does not a superhero make.
NONE of my characters started with gameplay in mind. I started with a character concept then found something in-game that fit the concept I had in mind. Thing is, I don't try to make the in-game character do everything the concept might be able to do. that's just too much stuff.
I used Phantasma as an example earlier... the original concept carries around a pair of hatchets. These are more decorative than anything else, though they are functional weapons and she CAN use them if she wants to. It's just that her actual powers are far more dangerous. In the original concept, getting choked by one of the ribbons that dangles from her clothes is actually far worse.
Biff, back in college, when we still played 3rd edition on tables, I created the Arachnid, intended as a sort of Spider-Man update. His powers were all pooled under Elemental Control: Spider Abilities, which my GM allowed, with the proviso that I had to show a legitimate source that spiders could do that. So yeah, Clinging, Entangle, Swinging, Gliding (spinning a web-parasail), 360-Degree Vision, enhanced STR, DEX, and SPD, extra PD and ED... I was tempted to add a 0-Range NND damage-over-time attack, with defense being armor or more than 5 points of PD covering the body, to represent a venomous bite, but that wasn't the kind of guy the Arachnid was.
A "theme" can be extended to many things. As for your example of the sorcerer who only knows Fireball, and whether you can excuse that to cover other fire powers - well, there's an old saying: "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." It would make perfect sense that as the sorcerer gained experience in using that Fireball spell, he'd work hard to figure out how to adapt it to service his various other needs.
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"
I think it's less that people "don't mind" and more that "I don't really like the change, but all you can do is adapt". It's likely not going to go back to the way it was. So just do with what you can. Perhaps the change was for the best since it was apparently inefficient to the game's resources, so that opens up things for developers to do something with what has been freed up. Likewise, builds will be more varied (mainly in terms of specs, but likely with power combos and effects as well).
All things a superhero could and probably would do, yeah. I DID say it was a very extreme example, to illustrate the point.
For a less extreme example, I have a character whose superpower involves punching. You'd figure he was just a superstrength guy but that's not the case. He doesn't lift heavy things, he can't create shockwaves by clapping his hands together, etc. On top of that, his aim is not to severely injure people, so he wouldn't use lethal weapons like swords.
So I want to take an AoE. Based on the theme limitations I listed above, thunder clap, havoc stomp, shock wave, none of that stuff will work, regardless of how good those powers will make the character. Oh he also doesn't use Roomsweeper because he's not left-handed (really). So I had to break my theme in order to have a decent AoE attack.
Years later when I got the invisible weapons costumes, I was able to use Arc of Ruin (I think that's the one) because it looks like a cool backhand fist, is decent damage, and applies a debuff. Fun!
This is an actual example here. I know that most heroes aren't one-trick ponies but if that's how a player's theme is, that's how it is and that's how they're gonna build it, regardless of how bad it makes the character. Like I said, you can have theme characters that work fine and have "all the Lightning powers" but that's not generally what people (at least used to) think of when talking about theme, and why theme builds have a reputation for being less than optimal. People talk about "making theme builds with synergy and effectiveness" but it's not using a theme build, it's picking powers that fit a theme within the build mechanics. Sounds like splitting hairs and pedantry probably, but that's what it is. That's why actual "theme" builds tend to not have and particularly won't or can't support good building or synergy. AGAIN, not saying it's impossible. But while "twisting the spell to work in other ways" is something most heroes would do, doing any of them would break the theme, and will make the character less enjoyable for that player.
And as a side note, the one-fireball guy is an extreme example, but have you ever tried to help Xel with build advice? There's a guy who takes his theme seriously, and he has lots of trouble because of it. If you think about it it's a more extreme example than one-fireball man because the role Xel intends to fulfill doesn't fit in the tank, healer, cc, or dps category. He wants to do neither of those things but remain useful in groups. It is a bit of an extreme case, but it's a real one, and it illustrates perfectly what theme characters deal with.
Tsin'xing: the original idea doesn't use energy based attacks as her main form of attack. It's something she CAN do, but she also can rip space inside-out to damage enemies. Also, teleportation is basically her thing. But the original concept could do things like stabbing someone through space portals.... also she carries a massive broadsword that she uses as a weapon. The in-game version actually uses magic based skills, but the concept is a sort of chi-manipulation.
Lautna: the concept is someone who doesn't use physical weapons. So she uses the Foxbat invisible pistols. Also I had her dress like Destroyer because it amused me, not because it's part of the character concept.
Nelko: character concept was a guy who uses high-tech bows to do stuff. I visualized it as crossbows, but the game uses regular bows.
When I create a character without the game in mind, the result is typically a character that cannot be built within the game, because it has abilities that do not exist in the game. At that point, I have to compromise with the limits of the game. Given that I'm already compromising, I don't see a reason not to compromise in a way that works well in the the game.
People can choose a different compromise, but if you don't try to make the character work in the game, you don't really have grounds for complaining when it doesn't.
Theme can be viable for endgame but obviously yes there is build combinations that wont work doesnt mean u cant find one that does or find a way to make that combination work better
But yes not every combination is gonna be the good that is every game ever. Still i like COs customization is still my favorite. Power wise.
When I create a character without the game in mind, the result is typically a character that cannot be built within the game, because it has abilities that do not exist in the game. At that point, I have to compromise with the limits of the game. Given that I'm already compromising, I don't see a reason not to compromise in a way that works well in the the game.
People can choose a different compromise, but if you don't try to make the character work in the game, you don't really have grounds for complaining when it doesn't.
Nobody's complaining that the characters don't work. There's basically just an understanding that characters built on a theme can underperform, and it's by choice. So you have people saying "theme builds aren't good" and others saying "my theme character is great" because people are mistaking a character that follows a strict theme with a character whose powers all just "match up".
Personally I don't think I ever complained that my themed characters "didn't work." To me it was more important that the character feel like the character I created more so than the scores I get in the game. Also I play both kids of characters, themed and "loose" themed, so if I really need to hit big numbers for whatever reason, I play one of the looser themes.
As a broad stroke generalization, you're absolutely right. My most effective character in-game is a character that is just a super strong punchy guy (see sig). He doesn't do anything in-game that he wouldn't do in the stories I write him in. While my scores with him are hardly among the best in the game, he does well enough without having to break my theme in any way.
When I create a character without the game in mind, the result is typically a character that cannot be built within the game, because it has abilities that do not exist in the game. At that point, I have to compromise with the limits of the game. Given that I'm already compromising, I don't see a reason not to compromise in a way that works well in the the game.
People can choose a different compromise, but if you don't try to make the character work in the game, you don't really have grounds for complaining when it doesn't.
Nobody's complaining that the characters don't work. There's basically just an understanding that characters built on a theme can underperform, and it's by choice. So you have people saying "theme builds aren't good" and others saying "my theme character is great" because people are mistaking a character that follows a strict theme with a character whose powers all just "match up".
Personally I don't think I ever complained that my themed characters "didn't work." To me it was more important that the character feel like the character I created more so than the scores I get in the game. Also I play both kids of characters, themed and "loose" themed, so if I really need to hit big numbers for whatever reason, I play one of the looser themes.
This sounds like your idea of building a theme is shoving a square peg through a round hole. I say this because your attempts at defining "strict theme" as separate from "powers just match up" don't make sense any other way. Thing is CO has a lot of options some of which are square holes.
In a lot of cases it literally is a square peg in a round hole situation especially if you've created a character outside of the game. A person building Spider-Man and sticking to the theme wouldn't use Swinging because Spider-Man doesn't use a grapple gun. The effect is right, but it doesn't look the part. That's something that theme people deal with. The more you bend, the less your character fits the actual theme. You want the character to fit aesthetically, not just mechanically.
If you want to blur the lines between a strict theme and "powers just match up" and call everything a theme, then you could argue that any character with any combination of powers fits a theme. Psychic bolts energy builder, quicksand attack, pulse beam rifle, fireball, ice shield, lead tempest, on a demonic half-wolf half-angel demigod robot voodoo shaman can be a theme because, I dunno, he's also the avatar of chaos theory or something.
The only reason I'm defining it this way is because this is just the way some people build characters and some don't. There's a distinction there. You don't build characters like that, and that's fine. Not everyone should or should want to.
If you want to blur the lines between a strict theme and "powers just match up" and call everything a theme, then you could argue that any character with any combination of powers fits a theme.
Exactly. Nobody but the player who made the character can say if it's a theme character or not. If someone tells you their character was made according to a theme then it's a theme character. Nobody else has any say in the matter. You can have your opinion on whether it fits your personal definition or not, but that definition only applies to your own characters. If you try to tell someone that their character is not theme when they tell you it is, you're wrong.
Well granted, I didn't read through the whole thing. I guess I should say that I personally wasn't complaining that my character didn't "work". I just picked the powers that made sense, regardless of how viable they were, and left it at that.
But, there does need to be a distinction made between the two types of characters so that people don't make broad generalizations like that. I suppose concept character and concept build might be a place to start. A concept character could be something that you wouldn't take concept-breaking powers on and a concept build could be a character built with "what makes sense" attached to them.
I dunno, was just trying to shed some light on the confusion.
Well granted, I didn't read through the whole thing. I guess I should say that I personally wasn't complaining that my character didn't "work". I just picked the powers that made sense, regardless of how viable they were, and left it at that.
But, there does need to be a distinction made between the two types of characters so that people don't make broad generalizations like that. I suppose concept character and concept build might be a place to start. A concept character could be something that you wouldn't take concept-breaking powers on and a concept build could be a character built with "what makes sense" attached to them.
I dunno, was just trying to shed some light on the confusion.
Your character categories ARE broad generalizations though.
The broad generalization being that all "theme" builds are sub-optimal. I disagree with that because some theme builds can work just fine. The fact is that we're not talking about whether builds are optimal or not, we're talking about how they're built and why. The distinction is if you're just building a character or if you're building a character with strict limits in mind (usually for the reason of having created that character elsewhere, or just having a sense of what that character would or wouldn't do).
It's quite true that some thematic builds are more than capable. I'm having a lot of fun with Captain Mercaptan right now, for instance, and he's built around a theme of toxic gases. (Unfortunately, I can't set "tail" as an emanation point, even though he is a skunk/man hybrid...) Chaingang was fun, too, and the first toon I got to 40 without noticing I was getting up there; all of his powers are based around his control of the chains wrapped around his arms.
On the other hand, Staredown, who I've limited to powers that can look like they're coming from his eyes, is a tad more restricted, and I don't know if I'm going to get him as far as 30. There are times I like playing him, but there are a lot more times I wonder if I should still keep him around... And the super-soldier Captain Americlown, while a fun concept, has some problems balancing threat generation and his own life. I might have to rejigger him with Regeneration as a passive just so he can live long enough to do some serious damage with his guns.
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"
I would assign a success/failure percentage to attempts at duplicating characters in the game. This tiem I'll discuss not only my characters, but some of their Nemeses!
Tsin'xing Bizzet: powers 75%, costume 95%
Mary Walkeer(Tsin'xing's nem): powers 90%, costume 95%(it's a copy of Bloody Mary from Marvel comics rather than an original idea)
Lautna Relvos: powers 75%, costume... I actually hadn't thought out her costume.
Nelko: powers 90%, costume 90%
Morticia(Nelko's nemesis): powers... NA, since the character inspiration doesn't actually have any, costume 95%(I think I made a near duplicate of the costume of the lead singer of Babymetal)
Tanya Wilson: powers 85%, costume 100%
Kaileia Nirbak(Tanya's nemesis): powers 90%(caveat: this is one of those where no power frame CAN do everything the character concept can so I chose one that is only things she does), costume 98% (if you look really hard the forehead detail is wrong)
What it really comes down to is if someone is willing to settle for lower performance. If you're willing to settle for lower performance then you can't come back later and use that as an excuse, and you certainly can't use it as a justification for broken or unbalanced mechanics - yes diversity is important, but what good is promoting one kind of diversity through unbalanced mechanics that kill another kind of diversity. What you can do is ask for things that would help your goofy concept be possible, since more often than not the problem isn't "I don't have enough defense", it's "The game doesn't have the power I need".
My general bit of advice is that if you're really just mashing powers together with zero eye towards synergy, run your character in hybrid with Invulnerability. It'll give you the defense you need to have time to get your attacks out, since your build will likely be slow - your energy might not be great, but hey chance to throw your EB in there as part of your theme ( stat some Recovery ). Sure, things will die slower, but you're not a min/max gotta-kill-em-fast player anyway - slower battles are better for roleplaying your character's powers. Well unless your theme is "Guy who gets beat up easy" but I've never seen someone say they couldn't get that theme to work.
As for cosmics and endgame and stuff you need to do to get costumes ( not gear, since you don't care about that since you're settling for lower performance! ). Make a character with good performance for that stuff. It won't kill ya.
For endgame, if your character is good enough and not a detriment to the run as a whole, there's no reason not to show up. Even if you're barely getting that 100k score. And there's nothing saying theme builders wouldn't want the best gear. Just because they don't want to min-max their powers doesn't mean they can't max out one of the more useful things that literally have no bearing on the theme.
I haven't met any theme builders that have demanded that the game made easier for them (again I didn't read the whole thread). Suggest things that'll make the build work better, sure, but building around a theme for character, you go in knowing your viability is going to be compromised from the beginning (or at least the first time you decide to pass on a useful power because punch man wouldn't use a rocket launcher).
For me, theme is what you get when you create a character without the game in mind. People who have been making superheroes since they were kids and then porting them to the game are playing the real "theme" builds.
That's not to say you can't create a theme build with the game in mind, but at that point you're just creating a game character.
For me, that superhero who's being ported to one game or another always accounts for the world they're in. A big part of the fun is thinking about how would this character develop in this world vs another one. It's the same backstory mostly but specifically for the world they inhabit and grow into.
Creating a theme character without the game in mind breaks the theme. For me, a theme character by definition is greatly influenced and shaped by the game world.
Say then that you created a character who found a magic book that had one spell in it. Let's say it's fireball. For the theme of this character, that's the only attack you're gonna take because he only has that one spell in his book. It's an extreme example, for sure, but that's the kind of thing people building around a theme face. That's why often theme builds are considered less than optimal. Most people would be like "well he knows fire magic, so let's say he twisted the spell to give himself fire wings to fly around with, and he found out how to make snakes with his fire" and so on. A theme builder wouldn't consider those things regardless of how good it could make the character because it breaks the character's theme.
That'd be fine. Presumably that theme builder would also be fine with having that character be relatively pathetic vs. superpowered Dinosaurs and other cosmic beings since those exist in the world of that character.
That character knew to avoid such beings at all costs since being a dummy was not part of their theme.
Then one day their loved one was taken by Eidolon so the character sought help from those who had faced Eidolon before in order to get stronger. They learned new powerful ways of manipulating fire. With the help of their friends the character burned down the forces of Qliphoth and rescued their love from the clutches of darkness.
I totally embrace the idea that the concept of theme is deeply personal and different for each player. I can see where someone might want to just ignore everything and come to CO to make whatever they've been dreaming about. It's fantastic that CO's level of customization pulls people in for this reason.
Issues only arise when people who say that they don't care about game mechanics go on to vigorously argue for changing the game mechanics. I know you're not one of them, this last bit is more of a response for some of the others in the thread.
Yep, all those are suitable ways to handle a hero and/or a theme. Like nobody's gonna kick down your door because you didn't follow a character theme to a T, but a person who does shouldn't expect to have the game work around their own self-imposed limits.
I think we're pretty much in agreement with strict theme characters and how to handle them. I won't often break my character themes for optimization but if the character just sucks I won't bring it to team stuff or not play it at all (hello, character with all-different blast powers from every power set that sucked out completely, I won't miss you).
I totally embrace the idea that the concept of theme is deeply personal and different for each player. I can see where someone might want to just ignore everything and come to CO to make whatever they've been dreaming about. It's fantastic that CO's level of customization pulls people in for this reason.
This is the big thing on all points. But bottom line it's the reason why theme builds got the rep they did, because people who are strict on theme usually won't budge. And there's nothing wrong with it (until they start making silly demands, for sure).
I haven't met any theme builders that have demanded that the game made easier for them (again I didn't read the whole thread). Suggest things that'll make the build work better, sure, but building around a theme for character, you go in knowing your viability is going to be compromised from the beginning (or at least the first time you decide to pass on a useful power because punch man wouldn't use a rocket launcher).
Interesting example.... Why would this be the case? I can't think of any reason to use a rocket launcher in a melee DPS build at all, let alone one where it's the optimal choice...
Just pulling something out of my **** as a hypothetical. Like, if rocket launcher was the best aoe around, some people wouldn't think twice about it, but punch man would sacrifice that optimization for his theme.
I guess if it helps to have more realistic examples, Unleashed Rage, which is a great ultimate that does great damage and looks really cool, isn't a punch, so punch man wouldn't take it, regardless of the obvious damage potential and in-set theme.
Yep, all those are suitable ways to handle a hero and/or a theme. Like nobody's gonna kick down your door because you didn't follow a character theme to a T, but a person who does shouldn't expect to have the game work around their own self-imposed limits.
I think we're pretty much in agreement with strict theme characters and how to handle them. I won't often break my character themes for optimization but if the character just sucks I won't bring it to team stuff or not play it at all (hello, character with all-different blast powers from every power set that sucked out completely, I won't miss you).
Agreement. Staredown isn't limited by the game mechanics, he's limited because that's how I conceived the character - he's got superhuman eyes, but that's all. And even if I do take him all the way eventually, he's never going to go into any endgame queues (on the rare occasion that I do them at all) because he's intentionally crippled as a character.
It's certainly not Cryptic's responsibility to make my self-limiting choices "viable" - that one's 100% on me.
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"
Comments
The passive VFX change was one of my favorite things they've ever done with the game. I could finally take super-OP arcane clarty and not have a blurry magic thing on my forehead. (But seriously, that was a terrific change with zero drawbacks.)
It's just the way they play, that is all.
Powers
1: Radiance (advantages)
1: Conviction (advantages)
6: Iniquity (Rank 2, Rank 3)
8: Aura of Arcane Clarity (Rank 2, Rank 3)
11: Eldritch Shield (Rank 2, Rank 3)
14: Redemption (Salvation)
17: Lightning Strike (Rank 2)
20: Thundering Return (advantages)
23: Vala's Light (Rank 2, Light Everlasting)
26: Sonic Device (Rank 2, Rank 3)
29: Manipulator (advantages)
32: Electrical Current (Bad Wiring, Unlimited Power!)
35: Grasping Shadows (advantages)
38: Ego Sleep (Rank 2, Rank 3)
Hehe.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
Well, yeah, hence why I said at one point that everyone had a different view on what makes a theme. Some people build their theme while keeping viability in mind, others do not. Those that keep viability in mind get confused by the others simply because they are thinking to much about game mechanics. Truth is, the group that builds for fun, still has viable builds. And instead of complainig about people that don't want a certain power/spec tree/advantage/etc because it doesn't fit their theme they should isntead start thinking outside of the box they put themselves in and help find something that does fit the theme and still allows them to be viable. Is that always possible? No, but, more often than not, people who are strict about their theme, will recognize the fact that they have no choice but to take something they did not want. Meanwhile, the group that builds in themes with viability in mind, will never understand that way of thinking. For they are to busy playing the game instead of playing heroes (focusing on mechanics instead of having fun). Does that mean they don't have fun? I'm sure they do, but, when someone comes along with a playstyle different than theirs they tend to get confused.
In reality, instead of assuming only their way is the right way, they need to understand, there is multiple ways to play the game and they need to recognize that. Everyone has a different play style and idea of what makes a theme a theme. And in this, in truth, no one is right or wrong.
You had me until this part. Group 2 generally doesn't care what group 1 does in regards to building. It's certain members of group 1 who have a fit when their musclegunman gets knocked over because of their choices and then they try to blame the game for what they did. Then group 2 comes along and says "Well you shouldn'ta done that" and then group 1 says "You just don't understand me!" and that goes around in circles for a bit.
Also Group 1 is the group that always tries to argue what theme is/isn't. Group 2 generally agrees that theme is whatever you want it to be, hence it's too subjective to be used as an excuse for failure.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
clarification: mebe shoulda worded it better buuuut here what i meant:
fit as in, "WHY you do that?" and "of course you gonna do piddly dmg" and not a rage fit >.>
was annoyed by both groups >.<
my annoyance is pmuch that: the focus on theme alone as the center of the argument when the issue is either no ingame synergy available for that theme OR being unable to form a synergy and NOT asking for help with sorting of synergy when that player wants to take part in harder stuff
my other issue from seeing this argument crop up in way too many threads is that sometimes group 2 folk get carried away on the synergy / mechanical focus (from group 1's perspective) which is not the case (from group 2's perspective) ... is why i noted that feedback should be concise and not a huge draft >.> that can get overwhelming for those in group 1 who are very skittish about the mechanics in the first place
in short:
group 1 that wants to do harder content should be more open to asking for help w/ the mechanics
group 2 that wants to halp should keep in mind not to overdump knowledge and make sure they have a grasp of the 'feel' of group 1's chara
and there needs to be a whole lot less resentment and mud slinging between the two groups >.<
Also 1 is literally always the one bringing theme into it, so yell at them o3o
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
This is true. very much true. Hence why I may have been coming off a little strong in some of my posts. I felt that those in group 2 where obilivious to what people like me were meaning or wanting and were instead focusing to much on making the character viable.
As for helping someone pick a power that seems out of place in their theme. You have to think outside the box. For example, let's go back to my elemental mage. For the EU I used Gegedttering's MSA, which, as everyone knows, activates whenever a power comes off of cool down. Now, if we look at the icon and the name, neither fit my theme at all...yet, it does actually fit my theme, as long as you ignore the name and icon. Here is why: When my character's more powerful spells rebuild themselvs in their head they fill them with power.
See, I twisted a EU that has a very tech based name and icon into something that works for magic as well. This is further enhanced with my mage having Int primary and the EU going off of Int.
See, instead of just choosing a power because it would fix a problem. You need to also come up with a reason it would fit the theme. This would help dampen the entire "muh theme" complaint. Many powers are theme neutral, even if at first glance they might not seem like it. Thus, you got to figure out a way to....well...trick the person into thinking it fits. It is like stats in DnD, using a tomato as a base: Strength is how hard you can smash the tomato, Dexterity is for how accurately you can throw the tomato, Constitution is to see if you can survive eating a rotten tomato, Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, Wisdom is knowing to not put a tomato in a fruit salad, and Charisma (a strong stat in 5th Ed DnD know) is convincing a person to eat a fruit salad you made using tomatos.
don't you tell me who i can and can't yell at!!!!!!
but in all seriousness, both bozos get distracted by the word theme whether there was a valid reason to mention it or not >.< that my real gripe lol
this thing seems helpful; group 1 has a very quick knee-jerk reaction (AM SPEAKING IN GENERAL) to anything remotely that might seem off theme so yeah >.>
luckily we have awesim build gurus all over the forum and even tho i don't understand all the mechanics i can usually find a way to twist the myriad of suggestions that fit my theme
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
If you know how to build, then you can make a decent theme build (with one or 600 diff frameworks)
Now you are often faced with making hard choices like “damn i want this but i need that” which may make you rethink your whole build and twist it around but you can usually come up with something good, people tell me my munitions/laser sword/ dual sword build wont work... shes got top score with it on cosmics. Same with lightning/guns/force/fire
Or my enrage haymaker/heavy weapons/martial arts dodge tank which has solo tanked every cosmic including eidolon
I also have toons using only one framework, like my tk blades user.
Ofc tho its not all about knowledge some people dont mind sacrificing a bit of effectiveness for their character to be more fun for them or whatever reason, as a roleplayer, creative writer and theme builder myself I understand that.
And wether u follow one framework or many, wether ur theme or not, u can have a weak build and a good one.
So we should really stop arguing about this.
We understand theme, we get it
And i get why wardicator was so good for aopm i mean every pvper and their mom had it, and i have some friends who liked those type of builds for soloing or simply for providing dps while being able to heal at same time etc etc
And i can see why people pick aopm often for theme the whole jack of all trades allows for doing multiple things easily. And it created some synergy between certain things.
But take this opportunity to learn more and explore more options, passives or if u dint want to drop aopm there is other good specs not just wardicator loop, so explore and learn wether u do this by yourself or ask an experienced player to help you out or you and your friends test things and compare notes or make a build for u i mean thats how i learned people gave mebuilds and explained how they work. And lots of testing. They would make me test lol
Months ago when kaiserin said wardicator loop would be fixed me and my girlfriend and plenty of other friends were already testing good alternatives for it. Do not let this ruin ur fun do not be afraid to ask for help and dont be afraid to play your theme, imo a build is not good if you do not have fun with it, (quote stolen from a certain pupper owo),what do i mean by this? I prefer to have a fun build with my themes and stuff rather than what gets me top in a cosmic.
Which doesnt mean you cant have both, cause you certainly can
Also, wardicator has been proven to still be viable its just harder to make it work now and it sucks i liked the loop myself but it was needed and i accept it and we must adapt.
Edit: i dont take full credit for my builds, I had help from friends theyd help me with the build and/or help me test things, compare notes, give advice, explain how certain things work and id do the same for them thats how we do stuffs
This is what I mean.
I can not talk that precise. Obviously it is themed. Theme is whatever you want. But the quotation marks are to signify how obviously if someone complains their theme was not supported by the game they are specifically speaking of unsupported themes.
And that is the core of the issue. You even said it yourself:
It works well because of synergies that were built in. An open power system can possibly create emergent themes of thousands of combination possibilities... but this philosophy of framework priority tends to make every synergy prescribed.
In one sense that reduces developer work since emergent builds can possibly be overpowered, but in the other direction it reduces the possible content per development dollar. The usual theme park or sandbox.
This was less of a problem before the form system got increasingly finicky, and after the prescriptive 'recommended stats' philosophy was dropped during F2P conversion, which was probably the single best Champions update ever. Earth powers released, I believe, before form standardization.
The lack of a viable form or role for melee / distance is the big culprit. Along with energy unlocks.
I'm guessing the electric is sparkstorm/neuroelectric, which is a great combination for an enrage build, but not the typical performance of distance / melee. Lightning/Wind/Force are distance and can share a form and passive. Belphegor is melee. CCers and healers do not really have this issue as much because manipulator and compassion are distance agnostic, as Aesica mentioned.
Some sets do work. But some are awkward. Especially at multiple distances.
Ice and Archery do not have a melee. Wind, Force Darkness, and Sorcery have only a little, some virtually unusable. Telpathy and PA... sort of. Even Fire, Poison, and Electricity, which can synergize well in melee, are classified distance [other than Devour Essence]. Munitions, interestingly enough, has actual melee.
What I would recommend is:
Make no distinction for forms
Add a hybrid offense role that has slightly less buff but versatility, say 115%. Melee efficiency encourages risk/reward.
Add a few more abilities, especially to Ice, Darkness, Force, and Archery, that can provide utility either way like sparkstorm or sigils - knocks, bleeds, and toggle advantages help
Make Quicksand, Wall of Ice, Ice Barrier better
Add generic energy unlocks like Molecular Self Assembly or Overdrive that support charges, heals, mez, etc.
We could have skipped the entire conversation if you had just believed this all along.
Some builds are viable, some builds are not viable. Welcome to every game ever, for all of time. It will always be like this. All you have to do is make sure that the build you make for your character is viable - or not, but if you know you're making a build that isn't viable you can't use it as an excuse. Some super heroes are super man, some super heroes are robin - just don't send robin out to fight galacticus and everything will be fine.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
For example, when I made my character Phantasma I imagined her looking much like this:
The main difference was that i imagined her aura as being more white than yellow, but meh.
The basic concept of the character was a person who's more of an annoyance in fights than a deadly threat, but as mentioned before.... ribbon themed. So I asked for advice on making a CC/heal build and got pointed at Kamokami's treatise: https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/championsonline#/discussion/1210364/healer-builds/p1
I looked over the listed builds and picked one that uses a lot of powers that involve energy ribbons of some sort. See? THEMED!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
If you'd been paying any real attention to what I've been saying, you'd notice I was actually one of the more flexible people about builds.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Not quite.
The only time I'd be confused, is if someone insisted on doing something which was sub optimal (mechanically speaking) and then getting angry that they were not getting the results they wanted or able to match others who have built differently within their chosen theme.
An example: AoPM Hybrid Sorcery vs Enchanter or Shadow Form RDPS Sorcery. It would be stupid of me to get angry that I couldn't DPS as well as the RDPS as AoPM...because I'm clearly not spec'd for it. (Incidentally, I just did this very switch from AoPM to Enchanter...quite happy! Just wish Enchanter had something a bit more...)
You speak about "focusing on mechanics" as if that is entirely separate to having fun and liking the character you have made. Have you never thought of using in game mechanics to convey concept? Isn't that the whole point of the powers system and the associated mechanics?
What you've said here makes it seem as if the two can never exist within the same space. I enjoy improving my characters because I love their themes...I do this...by manipulating mechanics I use to my favor...increased effectiveness = increased fun. For me.
It's fine if others don't play that way or appreciate that method, but it becomes problematic when they expect all options to be equally viable and perform as well as those who have paid attention to mechanics and have utilized them within their theme, as opposed to those with (perhaps) broader themes, who aren't interested in mechanics.
My Characters on PRIMUS
[#]WeNeedHeroicFashion - <Aura Suggestions> - <CO Wiki (WIP)> - <Crowd Control Discussion> - <Telepathy in Champions Online> - How to review The Force Power Set - Join the Champions Online: On Alert Discord!
I am @RavenForce in game
__________________________
Fair enough. I wasn't being very clear. I've seen at time people get angry at people they are trying to help, but, the other person says that the power the other wants them to take has no purpse in their theme, even though the power would help them. But, the person helping is not thinking about the person's theme and is thinking more about increasing their abilities. In short, while their heart is in the right place, the way they went about it, was not correct, at least, not in my opinion. Though, this doesn't happen that often. But, I've seen it happen.
And yes, I realize my earlier paragraph has to much generalization, for I realize that not everyone is like that. And for that I appologize.
"The only time I'd be confused, is if someone insisted on doing something which was sub optimal (mechanically speaking) and then getting angry that they were not getting the results they wanted or able to match others who have built differently within their chosen theme."
Not exactly what I was meaning. But, close enough. Just, in the opposite direction. The helper trying to insert a power that in no real way could be considered part of the character's theme. Like adding a pual pistol power because it is useful for that build even though the build is not munitions nor does the character's theme have them using dual pistols (or even one). And than the helper getting upset because the helpee doesn't want that power for it breaks their theme way to much. And yes, that was just an example, and may or may not have actually happened (the ones I seen were different).
So, again, I appologize for generalizing to much with that paragraph.
"You speak about "focusing on mechanics" as if that is entirely separate to having fun and liking the character you have made. Have you never thought of using in game mechanics to convey concept? Isn't that the whole point of the powers system and the associated mechanics?"
To answer the last question: Yes and No. The entire point of the power system was to build the hero you want to be. Mechanics when the game first came out, did not really exist as they do now, the game has come a long way. There were mechanics in the past, but, nothing like we have now. As for the second question, of course I have, I'm sure you seen my example of what I did for my elemental mage, and I'm talking about my second example, of why and how I tied MSA to the build's theme and concept.
If that is how I made it sound, I applogize, that was not my intent or idea.
For me, theme is what you get when you create a character without the game in mind. People who have been making superheroes since they were kids and then porting them to the game are playing the real "theme" builds.
That's not to say you can't create a theme build with the game in mind, but at that point you're just creating a game character. You can be like "This is Lightning Guy, look at all these lightning moves he has! He can shoot lightning, he can make lightning balls, he can electrify the area around him, he can teleport around in lightning flashes!" This is fine but it reads as a game character that took all the Lightning powers.
Say then that you created a character who found a magic book that had one spell in it. Let's say it's fireball. For the theme of this character, that's the only attack you're gonna take because he only has that one spell in his book. It's an extreme example, for sure, but that's the kind of thing people building around a theme face. That's why often theme builds are considered less than optimal. Most people would be like "well he knows fire magic, so let's say he twisted the spell to give himself fire wings to fly around with, and he found out how to make snakes with his fire" and so on. A theme builder wouldn't consider those things regardless of how good it could make the character because it breaks the character's theme.
The character concept I originally had in mind for Tanya Wilson had her able to manipulate Earth, fire, water and ice for a wider variety of effects than are possible in-game. Also I visualized her as being able to use all of them offensively and defensively, but while theoretically possible that doesn't make for a good build. Also some of the idea I had just didn't work in game mechanics(like creating solid walls of liquid water, or storms of shuriken-sized snowflakes) But I can have her punch people so hard they pretty much fly over the horizon, use ice barriers, smack people with rocks, and create infernos.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
What the christ was the point of this
So if someone wanted me to help build this character, I'd start by asking them what abilities he has that make him worthy of being a member of the Champions. A single fireball spell does not a superhero make.
NONE of my characters started with gameplay in mind. I started with a character concept then found something in-game that fit the concept I had in mind. Thing is, I don't try to make the in-game character do everything the concept might be able to do. that's just too much stuff.
I used Phantasma as an example earlier... the original concept carries around a pair of hatchets. These are more decorative than anything else, though they are functional weapons and she CAN use them if she wants to. It's just that her actual powers are far more dangerous. In the original concept, getting choked by one of the ribbons that dangles from her clothes is actually far worse.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
A "theme" can be extended to many things. As for your example of the sorcerer who only knows Fireball, and whether you can excuse that to cover other fire powers - well, there's an old saying: "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." It would make perfect sense that as the sorcerer gained experience in using that Fireball spell, he'd work hard to figure out how to adapt it to service his various other needs.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
For a less extreme example, I have a character whose superpower involves punching. You'd figure he was just a superstrength guy but that's not the case. He doesn't lift heavy things, he can't create shockwaves by clapping his hands together, etc. On top of that, his aim is not to severely injure people, so he wouldn't use lethal weapons like swords.
So I want to take an AoE. Based on the theme limitations I listed above, thunder clap, havoc stomp, shock wave, none of that stuff will work, regardless of how good those powers will make the character. Oh he also doesn't use Roomsweeper because he's not left-handed (really). So I had to break my theme in order to have a decent AoE attack.
Years later when I got the invisible weapons costumes, I was able to use Arc of Ruin (I think that's the one) because it looks like a cool backhand fist, is decent damage, and applies a debuff. Fun!
This is an actual example here. I know that most heroes aren't one-trick ponies but if that's how a player's theme is, that's how it is and that's how they're gonna build it, regardless of how bad it makes the character. Like I said, you can have theme characters that work fine and have "all the Lightning powers" but that's not generally what people (at least used to) think of when talking about theme, and why theme builds have a reputation for being less than optimal. People talk about "making theme builds with synergy and effectiveness" but it's not using a theme build, it's picking powers that fit a theme within the build mechanics. Sounds like splitting hairs and pedantry probably, but that's what it is. That's why actual "theme" builds tend to not have and particularly won't or can't support good building or synergy. AGAIN, not saying it's impossible. But while "twisting the spell to work in other ways" is something most heroes would do, doing any of them would break the theme, and will make the character less enjoyable for that player.
And as a side note, the one-fireball guy is an extreme example, but have you ever tried to help Xel with build advice? There's a guy who takes his theme seriously, and he has lots of trouble because of it. If you think about it it's a more extreme example than one-fireball man because the role Xel intends to fulfill doesn't fit in the tank, healer, cc, or dps category. He wants to do neither of those things but remain useful in groups. It is a bit of an extreme case, but it's a real one, and it illustrates perfectly what theme characters deal with.
Tsin'xing: the original idea doesn't use energy based attacks as her main form of attack. It's something she CAN do, but she also can rip space inside-out to damage enemies. Also, teleportation is basically her thing. But the original concept could do things like stabbing someone through space portals.... also she carries a massive broadsword that she uses as a weapon. The in-game version actually uses magic based skills, but the concept is a sort of chi-manipulation.
Lautna: the concept is someone who doesn't use physical weapons. So she uses the Foxbat invisible pistols. Also I had her dress like Destroyer because it amused me, not because it's part of the character concept.
Nelko: character concept was a guy who uses high-tech bows to do stuff. I visualized it as crossbows, but the game uses regular bows.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
People can choose a different compromise, but if you don't try to make the character work in the game, you don't really have grounds for complaining when it doesn't.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Theme can be viable for endgame but obviously yes there is build combinations that wont work doesnt mean u cant find one that does or find a way to make that combination work better
But yes not every combination is gonna be the good that is every game ever. Still i like COs customization is still my favorite. Power wise.
Nobody's complaining that the characters don't work. There's basically just an understanding that characters built on a theme can underperform, and it's by choice. So you have people saying "theme builds aren't good" and others saying "my theme character is great" because people are mistaking a character that follows a strict theme with a character whose powers all just "match up".
Personally I don't think I ever complained that my themed characters "didn't work." To me it was more important that the character feel like the character I created more so than the scores I get in the game. Also I play both kids of characters, themed and "loose" themed, so if I really need to hit big numbers for whatever reason, I play one of the looser themes.
As a broad stroke generalization, you're absolutely right. My most effective character in-game is a character that is just a super strong punchy guy (see sig). He doesn't do anything in-game that he wouldn't do in the stories I write him in. While my scores with him are hardly among the best in the game, he does well enough without having to break my theme in any way.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
If you want to blur the lines between a strict theme and "powers just match up" and call everything a theme, then you could argue that any character with any combination of powers fits a theme. Psychic bolts energy builder, quicksand attack, pulse beam rifle, fireball, ice shield, lead tempest, on a demonic half-wolf half-angel demigod robot voodoo shaman can be a theme because, I dunno, he's also the avatar of chaos theory or something.
The only reason I'm defining it this way is because this is just the way some people build characters and some don't. There's a distinction there. You don't build characters like that, and that's fine. Not everyone should or should want to.
Exactly. Nobody but the player who made the character can say if it's a theme character or not. If someone tells you their character was made according to a theme then it's a theme character. Nobody else has any say in the matter. You can have your opinion on whether it fits your personal definition or not, but that definition only applies to your own characters. If you try to tell someone that their character is not theme when they tell you it is, you're wrong.
Depending on the time frame we're talking about I would say this is untrue. I think some people in this very thread have at least come close.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
But, there does need to be a distinction made between the two types of characters so that people don't make broad generalizations like that. I suppose concept character and concept build might be a place to start. A concept character could be something that you wouldn't take concept-breaking powers on and a concept build could be a character built with "what makes sense" attached to them.
I dunno, was just trying to shed some light on the confusion.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
On the other hand, Staredown, who I've limited to powers that can look like they're coming from his eyes, is a tad more restricted, and I don't know if I'm going to get him as far as 30. There are times I like playing him, but there are a lot more times I wonder if I should still keep him around... And the super-soldier Captain Americlown, while a fun concept, has some problems balancing threat generation and his own life. I might have to rejigger him with Regeneration as a passive just so he can live long enough to do some serious damage with his guns.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Tsin'xing Bizzet: powers 75%, costume 95%
Mary Walkeer(Tsin'xing's nem): powers 90%, costume 95%(it's a copy of Bloody Mary from Marvel comics rather than an original idea)
Lautna Relvos: powers 75%, costume... I actually hadn't thought out her costume.
Nelko: powers 90%, costume 90%
Morticia(Nelko's nemesis): powers... NA, since the character inspiration doesn't actually have any, costume 95%(I think I made a near duplicate of the costume of the lead singer of Babymetal)
Tanya Wilson: powers 85%, costume 100%
Kaileia Nirbak(Tanya's nemesis): powers 90%(caveat: this is one of those where no power frame CAN do everything the character concept can so I chose one that is only things she does), costume 98% (if you look really hard the forehead detail is wrong)
So yeah, it's like that.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
My general bit of advice is that if you're really just mashing powers together with zero eye towards synergy, run your character in hybrid with Invulnerability. It'll give you the defense you need to have time to get your attacks out, since your build will likely be slow - your energy might not be great, but hey chance to throw your EB in there as part of your theme ( stat some Recovery ). Sure, things will die slower, but you're not a min/max gotta-kill-em-fast player anyway - slower battles are better for roleplaying your character's powers. Well unless your theme is "Guy who gets beat up easy" but I've never seen someone say they couldn't get that theme to work.
As for cosmics and endgame and stuff you need to do to get costumes ( not gear, since you don't care about that since you're settling for lower performance! ). Make a character with good performance for that stuff. It won't kill ya.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
I haven't met any theme builders that have demanded that the game made easier for them (again I didn't read the whole thread). Suggest things that'll make the build work better, sure, but building around a theme for character, you go in knowing your viability is going to be compromised from the beginning (or at least the first time you decide to pass on a useful power because punch man wouldn't use a rocket launcher).
For me, that superhero who's being ported to one game or another always accounts for the world they're in. A big part of the fun is thinking about how would this character develop in this world vs another one. It's the same backstory mostly but specifically for the world they inhabit and grow into.
Creating a theme character without the game in mind breaks the theme. For me, a theme character by definition is greatly influenced and shaped by the game world.
That'd be fine. Presumably that theme builder would also be fine with having that character be relatively pathetic vs. superpowered Dinosaurs and other cosmic beings since those exist in the world of that character.
That character knew to avoid such beings at all costs since being a dummy was not part of their theme.
Then one day their loved one was taken by Eidolon so the character sought help from those who had faced Eidolon before in order to get stronger. They learned new powerful ways of manipulating fire. With the help of their friends the character burned down the forces of Qliphoth and rescued their love from the clutches of darkness.
I totally embrace the idea that the concept of theme is deeply personal and different for each player. I can see where someone might want to just ignore everything and come to CO to make whatever they've been dreaming about. It's fantastic that CO's level of customization pulls people in for this reason.
Issues only arise when people who say that they don't care about game mechanics go on to vigorously argue for changing the game mechanics. I know you're not one of them, this last bit is more of a response for some of the others in the thread.
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
I think we're pretty much in agreement with strict theme characters and how to handle them. I won't often break my character themes for optimization but if the character just sucks I won't bring it to team stuff or not play it at all (hello, character with all-different blast powers from every power set that sucked out completely, I won't miss you).
This is the big thing on all points. But bottom line it's the reason why theme builds got the rep they did, because people who are strict on theme usually won't budge. And there's nothing wrong with it (until they start making silly demands, for sure).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
I guess if it helps to have more realistic examples, Unleashed Rage, which is a great ultimate that does great damage and looks really cool, isn't a punch, so punch man wouldn't take it, regardless of the obvious damage potential and in-set theme.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
It's certainly not Cryptic's responsibility to make my self-limiting choices "viable" - that one's 100% on me.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!