hm...I know my original comment only said "typical" theme builds can be weak. As in, I was saying that some theme builds are weaker than others. Not that all theme builds are weak. And if I somehow made it sound like I was saying ALL theme builds are weak, well, I applogize for that. But, at the same time, I have several toons that I have gave them theme builds, but, I keep them as far away from end-game content as possilbe, because they are weak. I doubt they could even get over the 100k score hurdle for Cosmics, not saying it would be impossible, just, unrealistic. Which, means, I don't like it how some people are basically saying that ALL theme builds are strong and there is no such thing as a weak theme build. If someone, even unintentionally, made it sound like that all theme builds are weak and is wrong for that, than that means the same for people that make it sound like all theme builds are strong.
That aside, it seems we all actually share more or less the same idea of what makes a theme build a theme build. Which is a good thing.
@soulforger , do you then think it would be a good idea to see if your builds could be improved whilst still keeping to their theme?
Whilst it may not be possible for all your builds, I'd suggest picking one you are most comfortable "messing" with to see if you can alter them for endgame content, IF you wanted to join with those.
That's something I'm having to do with some of my builds (Pet build in particular, and I just did this for my AoPMer.)
@soulforger , do you then think it would be a good idea to see if your builds could be improved whilst still keeping to their theme?
Whilst it may not be possible for all your builds, I'd suggest picking one you are most comfortable "messing" with to see if you can alter them for endgame content, IF you wanted to join with those.
That's something I'm having to do with some of my builds (Pet build in particular, and I just did this for my AoPMer.)
Well, their builds were old and had powers that have been revamped/changed by now and so I've actually been tossing around ideas on how to change them while keeping them in theme. Chances are they will get stronger for these changes even without me really meaning to make them stronger. While I like keeping theme, I can more often than not figure out how some power does fit into the theme, even if at first it doesn't look like it.
Incidentally, the vast majority of specs are completely theme-free, so there's really no reason to talk about theme characters when talking about specs.
Is it required that your character's story stops once you start playing them in order for them to be "strictly themed"? Like, are they not allowed to learn and evolve as part of their continuing story here in the game.
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.
Not really a great example, since you're not really lowering the potential of a Might character by not taking UR - it's a great power sure, but as a performance person I wouldn't feel the need to take it on a Brick ( or any Ultimate on any character, they're certainly not required for top performance ). I mean there really is no "best aoe around" anymore. It used to be Lead Tempest and Epidemic, but now we have several aoes that effectively do what they do, and a bunch of other aoes that do things they don't that put them on equal footing. The whole "Rocket Launcher is the best aoe around so all the min-maxers take it" thing is kind of an old issue that no longer exists, so it wouldn't really effect what we're talking about anymore.
I don't think Punch Man is really a good example for this anyways since he's more of an example of a theme that you could both stick to thematically and make really strong by just taking powers that have good synergy - you could even do it by just taking powers from the Might tree. I dare say Biff, if it was me who had brought up Punch Man you might be denying that he's a theme character according to your definition, telling me "well you just made him according to synergies etc".
But bottom line it's the reason why theme builds got the rep they did,
But now I'm wondering... among whom did they get this reputation? It seems like every time this gets brought up, someone says "my theme characters suck cause theme" and then all the elites swarm in to say "it's not cause of theme, theme builds can be very strong". I mean, I've certainly never seen someone during a cosmic or a TA say "OH DARN, too many theme builds here to succeed!". Though of course I might start saying it now for funsies.
See I think this whole thing came out of the "frankenbuild era" (2013-2015ish?), where we basically had figured out an optimal setup that just left like 3 slots for "theme" powers. So back then it was frankenbuilds vs theme builds, theme builds being the ones that deviated from the frankenbuild setup and having greatly lowered performance by comparison. However, we no longer live in that era. The days of the frankenbuild are pretty much dead, and whatever is left of it are quickly being scrubbed away. That's why now when you say "theme build" as it was defined back then many of the characters you're talking about are topping Cosmic scoreboards, and tanking/healing/CCing cosmics, steamrolling alerts, soloing the QWarzone, etc...
It is interesting that back then there was no discussion on if you were theme if you adhered to a set, since back then doing that was nerfing your toon just like a "captain rockets and lightning bolts" theme would. There was no talk about "it has to be a character from outside of the game" or anything like that, we were all just theme builders that were less powerful than the frankenbuilders. Now that some of these themes can perform, suddenly the other half of the team no longer wants them on the theme team. Too strong to belong.
I guess I just don't see the point in redefining theme just so more people can be excluded.
See I think this whole thing came out of the "frankenbuild era" (2013-2015ish?), where we basically had figured out an optimal setup that just left like 3 slots for "theme" powers. So back then it was frankenbuilds vs theme builds, theme builds being the ones that deviated from the frankenbuild setup and having greatly lowered performance by comparison. However, we no longer live in that era. The days of the frankenbuild are pretty much dead, and whatever is left of it are quickly being scrubbed away. That's why now when you say "theme build" as it was defined back then many of the characters you're talking about are topping Cosmic scoreboards, and tanking/healing/CCing cosmics, steamrolling alerts, soloing the QWarzone, etc...
strongly inclined to agree here; i remember that era very well and yeah psure thats where the real big divide was and right now, i mainly have issues with form toggles but definitely waaaaay better to do theme stuff now and be viable
That's something I'm having to do with some of my builds (Pet build in particular, and I just did this for my AoPMer.)
slight tangent, i has a "pure" pet build that used to solo (with great difficulty) Andrith Ruins (been a few months now), without a block, energy unlock and neither of best defense or aggressive stance >.> her theme is entirely "i summon stuff and boss everyone around" >.< essentially boosting pet dmg by criting heals and using commander spec; so that might be something you could use... tho she obv isn't for cosmic stuff since as far as i understand pets are a huge hinderance there
Nobody's redefining anything. This is what building around a theme has been for the almost-nine-years I been here, and people talked about it back then too. Just cuz you weren't there or don't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Is it required that your character's story stops once you start playing them in order for them to be "strictly themed"? Like, are they not allowed to learn and evolve as part of their continuing story here in the game.
Theme characters are required, by law, (and you agreed to this on the EULA) to never evolve and to have the same powers forever. When you click the "theme" button on the character creator it actually takes away the option to ever retcon, because meaningful decisions are the only real theme in real life.
Oh wait there's actually no rules on how you maintain a theme so this is a weird question. Theme builds are basically a set of self-imposed rules and guidelines for how you can or can't build your own character, and since we've already established that basically anything can be a theme and no-one can really tell you otherwise, this question really just feels like you're trying to catch me in some technicality.
Theme building is just something people do, something people have done since this game started, something that probably happened during city of heroes. I'm not trying to establish rules you must adhere by, I'm just telling you how theme builders build, why, and why they have the reputation for being weak (with character-based limits, because you want the character to feel like the one they're modeled after, and because you make sacrifices to make the character feel right).
Not really a great example, since you're not really lowering the potential of a Might character by not taking UR - it's a great power sure, but as a performance person I wouldn't feel the need to take it on a Brick ( or any Ultimate on any character, they're certainly not required for top performance ). I mean there really is no "best aoe around" anymore. It used to be Lead Tempest and Epidemic, but now we have several aoes that effectively do what they do, and a bunch of other aoes that do things they don't that put them on equal footing. The whole "Rocket Launcher is the best aoe around so all the min-maxers take it" thing is kind of an old issue that no longer exists, so it wouldn't really effect what we're talking about anymore.
I don't think Punch Man is really a good example for this anyways since he's more of an example of a theme that you could both stick to thematically and make really strong by just taking powers that have good synergy - you could even do it by just taking powers from the Might tree. I dare say Biff, if it was me who had brought up Punch Man you might be denying that he's a theme character according to your definition, telling me "well you just made him according to synergies etc".
Oh my god, okay, imagine a guy who only punches but is left handed so he won't take haymaker. Is that a decent enough hypothetical for you or do we have to set up a research team to craft the perfect hypothetical situation to get the point across? Please submit your most perfect hypothetical situations that can clearly illustrate why someone would take one power over another or completely avoid a power due to not fitting neatly within a theme to National Geographic Themes And The Fun Of Destroying Conversation With Incessant Pedantry, c/o Nancy Reagan, PO box 4324, Canada.com.
PS- punch man doesn't exist. I don't even capitalize his name.
But bottom line it's the reason why theme builds got the rep they did,
But now I'm wondering... among whom did they get this reputation?
"Players". You know all the people who came in here and said that theme builds a are weak? Them. You know all the people that came in and were like "all my powers match, so you're wrong"? They're the ones that didn't understand that some people build characters that way, never even occurred to them that that kind of mindset even existed, so they assumed theme building was just taking mini mines as an aoe because your main attack was pistols (remember when mini mines was the go-to aoe? Right before launch? Do I need to craft a more perfect hypothetical situation to get the point across or should we argue about this forever?).
It seems like every time this gets brought up, someone says "my theme characters suck cause theme" and then all the elites swarm in to say "it's not cause of theme, theme builds can be very strong". I mean, I've certainly never seen someone during a cosmic or a TA say "OH DARN, too many theme builds here to succeed!". Though of course I might start saying it now for funsies.
It depends on the character. There's no blanket "all theme characters suck" statement because that's just plain wrong. You can't fix "fireball-only man" by being elite, it's just a concept that doesn't work. Fixing him means breaking the build, which is okay for some people, not okay for others.
And yes, since you don't get a giant chartreuse spotlight on you just for making a theme build, it's hard to spot who built their character how. Heck, before yesterday you didn't even know the limitations I imposed on myself when I built my main, which you've seen at cosmics. You didn't know it was a thing. You thought theme building was just "not making a gross frankenbuild". How on earth could you possibly blame people for something you didn't even know existed?
See I think this whole thing came out of the "frankenbuild era" (2013-2015ish?), where we basically had figured out an optimal setup that just left like 3 slots for "theme" powers. So back then it was frankenbuilds vs theme builds, theme builds being the ones that deviated from the frankenbuild setup and having greatly lowered performance by comparison. However, we no longer live in that era. The days of the frankenbuild are pretty much dead, and whatever is left of it are quickly being scrubbed away. That's why now when you say "theme build" as it was defined back then many of the characters you're talking about are topping Cosmic scoreboards, and tanking/healing/CCing cosmics, steamrolling alerts, soloing the QWarzone, etc...
Wrong. Again, theme builds aren't just taking "powers that match each other." Never has been, never will be. What you're talking about may be thematic, but it's not the theme building were talking about, and it's not something that only existed or exists due to frankenbuilds (which were around when the game launched, not just starting on 2013, thank you very much). The fact is that there are still people who build characters this way, who have self-imposed limits which may or may not make the characters sub-optimal. This is just a thing that is and has been, not something I'm trying to create or rally for, so I don't get why you oppose it so much.
It is interesting that back then there was no discussion on if you were theme if you adhered to a set, since back then doing that was nerfing your toon just like a "captain rockets and lightning bolts" theme would. There was no talk about "it has to be a character from outside of the game" or anything like that, we were all just theme builders that were less powerful than the frankenbuilders. Now that some of these themes can perform, suddenly the other half of the team no longer wants them on the theme team. Too strong to belong.
Wrong. There's always been discussion about theme characters. Since the game launched. And you're misinterpreting what I said. It doesn't have to be a character from outside the game, but it just often is. A lot of people make characters they imagined long before the game, characters they played as in paper and pencil RPGs, and they want them to feel like those characters. If the character never shot a lightning bolt or a rocket in their lives, they're not gonna do it now, regardless of how bad it makes the character.
And this whole "theme team" business is nonsense. Two of my main characters, Biff Smackwell and Kid Knuckles, are theme and they don't "underperform". They were created in this game, for this game. Theme doesn't inherently underperform just because you ticked the Theme checkbox. Offender doesn't perform as well as them and his theme has changed from super strength to power armor to force and probably several other things in between. He's one of my least-themey characters and he gets worse scores on cosmics. So oh my god where does this place me and my dumb characters in this crazy cosmic conundrum?!
I guess I just don't see the point in redefining theme just so more people can be excluded.
Oh there's your problem. You think I'm REdefining, when I'm just telling you how it's been since I got here, something that people were doing long before me (cuz I didn't get into closed beta, wah!) and that people were probably doing in city of heroes long before.
The only thing I've personally proposed is possibly making a distinction between what was originally known as theme building and making a character around a cohesive theme. Because both can be suitable theme characters, but only one of those characters has any sort of self-imposed limits based on what the character would and could do. Everything else is just how it's always been. Can't blame me for that, it was like that when I got here!
Incidentally, the vast majority of specs are completely theme-free, so there's really no reason to talk about theme characters when talking about specs.
Yup, just about anything that's "invisible" is theme-free. That's why taking visible auras off of passive a was such a huge boon to theme builders.
Oh wait there's actually no rules on how you maintain a theme so this is a weird question. Theme builds are basically a set of self-imposed rules and guidelines for how you can or can't build your own character, and since we've already established that basically anything can be a theme and no-one can really tell you otherwise, this question really just feels like you're trying to catch me in some technicality.
I'm just telling you how theme builders build, why, and why they have the reputation for being weak
Those two statements are incompatible. You can't tell me how theme builders build and why for the reason you just stated: it's all self-imposed rules and guidelines and anything can be theme and no-one can tell you otherwise. The reason you're frustrated is because you're still trying to do it. Your current position is "Nobody can tell you otherwise, but I'm telling you otherwise" and that is a position that is guaranteed to leave you frustrated in trying to argue it.
Theme characters are required, by law, (and you agreed to this on the EULA) to never evolve and to have the same powers forever. When you click the "theme" button on the character creator it actually takes away the option to ever retcon, because meaningful decisions are the only real theme in real life.
Oh wait there's actually no rules on how you maintain a theme so this is a weird question. Theme builds are basically a set of self-imposed rules and guidelines for how you can or can't build your own character, and since we've already established that basically anything can be a theme and no-one can really tell you otherwise, this question really just feels like you're trying to catch me in some technicality.
Theme building is just something people do, something people have done since this game started, something that probably happened during city of heroes. I'm not trying to establish rules you must adhere by, I'm just telling you how theme builders build, why, and why they have the reputation for being weak (with character-based limits, because you want the character to feel like the one they're modeled after, and because you make sacrifices to make the character feel right).
Oof, you made a lot of assumptions here and kind of missed the point. My point was that it seems like some people want to build a theme and then keep it in stasis, and that that inflexibility leads to their issue. They can do that if they want sure, I was just pointing out a source of the problems being discussed.
You also seem to think I need an explanation of why people theme build... I'm not sure why, considering I'm someone who does so I'm sure I know the reason already.
Oh my god, okay, imagine a guy who only punches but is left handed so he won't take haymaker. Is that a decent enough hypothetical for you or do we have to set up a research team to craft the perfect hypothetical situation to get the point across? Please submit your most perfect hypothetical situations that can clearly illustrate why someone would take one power over another or completely avoid a power due to not fitting neatly within a theme to National Geographic Themes And The Fun Of Destroying Conversation With Incessant Pedantry, c/o Nancy Reagan, PO box 4324, Canada.com.
PS- punch man doesn't exist. I don't even capitalize his name.
If you want to get a point across, it's important to use a good example. Punch Man wasn't a good example, whether he exists or not. If I had brought him up, people would absolutely have said "That's not theme you just built inside a power set" so how could he be a good example for those people to get their point across? Not sure why you went all "oh my god" over that.
"Players". You know all the people who came in here and said that theme builds a are weak? Them. You know all the people that came in and were like "all my powers match, so you're wrong"? They're the ones that didn't understand that some people build characters that way, never even occurred to them that that kind of mindset even existed, so they assumed theme building was just taking mini mines as an aoe because your main attack was pistols (remember when mini mines was the go-to aoe? Right before launch? Do I need to craft a more perfect hypothetical situation to get the point across or should we argue about this forever?).
"Players". Yes Biff, "people". Kind of a bit vague don't you think? I was trying to narrow it down a bit more than that. The very fact that in this thread not all "players" have this reputation for theme builds in mind proves that it's not "Players" but a smaller group. Perhaps a very small group. Also again you're making a whole lot of assumptions here, many of which have been disproven throughout the course of this thread already.
It depends on the character. There's no blanket "all theme characters suck" statement because that's just plain wrong. You can't fix "fireball-only man" by being elite, it's just a concept that doesn't work. Fixing him means breaking the build, which is okay for some people, not okay for others.
And yes, since you don't get a giant chartreuse spotlight on you just for making a theme build, it's hard to spot who built their character how. Heck, before yesterday you didn't even know the limitations I imposed on myself when I built my main, which you've seen at cosmics. You didn't know it was a thing. You thought theme building was just "not making a gross frankenbuild". How on earth could you possibly blame people for something you didn't even know existed?
Well, there are people who have tried to make the blanket statement that theme characters suck. That has happened. Many times in fact. It even happened in this very thread. Also, what am I blaming people for? I didn't realize I was blaming anyone for anything, so I have to wonder where that came from.
Wrong. Again, theme builds aren't just taking "powers that match each other." Never has been, never will be. What you're talking about may be thematic, but it's not the theme building were talking about, and it's not something that only existed or exists due to frankenbuilds (which were around when the game launched, not just starting on 2013, thank you very much). The fact is that there are still people who build characters this way, who have self-imposed limits which may or may not make the characters sub-optimal. This is just a thing that is and has been, not something I'm trying to create or rally for, so I don't get why you oppose it so much.
I never said that theme is just taking powers that match each other. In fact, I've never said that ever, in this thread or anywhere else. I also never said that theme building only exists because of frankenbuilds. What do you think I'm opposing? Have you convinced yourself that I'm opposed to a certain type of theme building? At this point it seems like you're just making up positions to argue against; positions I don't hold.
Wrong. There's always been discussion about theme characters. Since the game launched. And you're misinterpreting what I said. It doesn't have to be a character from outside the game, but it just often is. A lot of people make characters they imagined long before the game, characters they played as in paper and pencil RPGs, and they want them to feel like those characters. If the character never shot a lightning bolt or a rocket in their lives, they're not gonna do it now, regardless of how bad it makes the character.
And this whole "theme team" business is nonsense. Two of my main characters, Biff Smackwell and Kid Knuckles, are theme and they don't "underperform". They were created in this game, for this game. Theme doesn't inherently underperform just because you ticked the Theme checkbox. Offender doesn't perform as well as them and his theme has changed from super strength to power armor to force and probably several other things in between. He's one of my least-themey characters and he gets worse scores on cosmics. So oh my god where does this place me and my dumb characters in this crazy cosmic conundrum?!
I never said there wasn't discussion about theme characters, what I said was that there was no discussion of "well your powers have synergy so you're not theme". This whole idea of "your powers all have synergy so you're not themed" is fairly new because now power sets have way more synergy to operate with, meaning that themed characters with synergy are much more likely to appear.
Also, you took a hard left here telling me that two of your theme characters don't underperform... why do you think I need to know this? I'm one of the first people who comes along and says "theme characters can perform" when someone says they can't.
Oh there's your problem. You think I'm REdefining, when I'm just telling you how it's been since I got here, something that people were doing long before me (cuz I didn't get into closed beta, wah!) and that people were probably doing in city of heroes long before.
The only thing I've personally proposed is possibly making a distinction between what was originally known as theme building and making a character around a cohesive theme. Because both can be suitable theme characters, but only one of those characters has any sort of self-imposed limits based on what the character would and could do. Everything else is just how it's always been. Can't blame me for that, it was like that when I got here!
And here we're back to "Nobody can tell you otherwise, but I'm telling you otherwise". Also you say you're not redefining.. but then you outline your proposal for redefining theme by making a distinction between your own idea of what theme should be and what other people think theme can be. Why do we need this distinction? Considering that characters in both types of theme can perform or not, then what's the use of drawing a line between them? It wouldn't help anyone saying "X theme builds underperform" because it wouldn't make that statement any more true or clear than it is now. As far as I can tell it would essentially be the same as just saying they're all theme builds and leaving it at that.
Now here's where I blow your mind:
All of my characters have self-imposted limits based on what the character would and could do. And in fact, all the people we're talking about who consider their characters theme, no matter which category of theme you want to put them in, also have those self-imposed limits. Some have more, some have less, so what's the use of trying to define a cutoff point that puts them in two separate groups? After all there are people with builds similar to mine, who went just a bit beyond my self-imposed limits who perform much better than I do. Should I try to draw a line between them and myself?
You can deny the "theme team" business, but you're the one trying to say people can't be on yours. I'm the one saying that we're all on the same one.
I just don't see why you want this distinction made. Is it so that people can say "X Theme builders needed the pre-fix Wardicator"? That is where this whole thing started.
Like I've said many times before, you can definite things for yourself however you like, have 30 different categories of theme, I don't give a care there. Just don't try to tell me what category I am, because I'm just theme, and nobody can tell you otherwise.
slight tangent, i has a "pure" pet build that used to solo (with great difficulty) Andrith Ruins (been a few months now), without a block, energy unlock and neither of best defense or aggressive stance >.> her theme is entirely "i summon stuff and boss everyone around" >.< essentially boosting pet dmg by criting heals and using commander spec; so that might be something you could use... tho she obv isn't for cosmic stuff since as far as i understand pets are a huge hinderance there
When I mentioned the pet build and messing around with it, end game is exactly what I had in mind.
Whilst her actual theme (Technopath and metal manip, super intelligent etc) could be represented MANY different ways in CO, I chose to go for a more supportive route with her relying on the gadgets and robots she creates in order to "fight", whilst also supporting her team / those around her. (I was taken by the Inventor AT when I first had her, since I was Silver before I went gold and then LTS)
I've been building for a while and whilst Commander spec is useful...I think the deeper problem is just pets in general. So I'm actually considering moving her into a DPS role or at least a more directed support role.
Whilst she mechanically works quite well...I know she could be maybe not "better" but more directed in a specific way which allows her to remain in theme but also makes her mechanically different in order to pursue endgame if I wanted.
I've worked for endgame gear with her, got all my pieces etc I just went to Cosmics without pets...which was a bit rough in terms of my actual damage output...but I got through.
Ideally I'd just like to do more than "get through", because that feels horrible when you're used to doing more than just "getting through".
So my personal project is to either wait and see if Gadgeteering is improved along with the pet system...or simply relegate the idea of tech pets to the devices I have (or leaving them as other characters I have) and focus the build on doing something more productive and fun.
Which honestly isn't difficult at all for me, I'm just reluctant to change, but I could easily go: PA or Gadgets DPS, CC/Healer, Greater Pet Master and still be in theme and work very well.
(I always hoped there would be a tech passive which functioned like a mash up of AoED, AoRP & Targeting Computer for self and pets)
It's just that the way in which the end game has been set up to work...it can feel like it alienates some aspects of the game's building ability...a la pets.
If people remember, some endgame encounters had to be adjusted or added to try and desperately make Crowd Control marginally relevant in terms of direct contribution to the main fight. Kiga for example, used to "just" require 5 tanks and 5 or 6 dedicated healers. No CC necessary. Along with the zone restrictions and the scaling...it became apparent that something else was needed. Devs made a few tweaks and CC gradually became more viable in those specific instances.
Similar thing with Ape, people used to nuke hearts. However this was not seen as a great solution by Devs so it was changed to force the idea that CC was relevant in this encounter, so now, people CC the hearts.
It seems to be the case that this isn't going to change, so I'd kinda be miffed to see that happen with the pet system...since much like the CC system, it really should be re-worked but there's not enough time or resources from what I gather.
At least the current CC system is at least workable for side parts in several endgame situations. Which apparently translates into "CC system is fine ", which I think was the intention all along to try and make it look fine. Quite honestly they've done a good job doing that, so I'm glad we can use the current CC system in a few specific instances where they are working alone (soloing or solo CCing the hearts/dogs etc), without it falling apart completely. The CC system could definitely be better, I've always said that. But for now, in my view it is satisfactory and really it seems that's all it needs to be.
On the other hand, Pets from what I've HEARD, seem to make each scenario problematic or are just a waste of time. Combined with their buggy AI, they just need help. At least CC was given a bandaid lol
Oh wait there's actually no rules on how you maintain a theme so this is a weird question. Theme builds are basically a set of self-imposed rules and guidelines for how you can or can't build your own character, and since we've already established that basically anything can be a theme and no-one can really tell you otherwise, this question really just feels like you're trying to catch me in some technicality.
I'm just telling you how theme builders build, why, and why they have the reputation for being weak
Those two statements are incompatible.
No they're not. Let's establish a few things. Theme builds have a bad reputation. They have this because people who build around a theme impose limits on their characters. Reputation isn't fact. You can have a theme build that is amazing and you can have a non-theme build that sucks. Builds run the gamut.
None of this stuff exists or is defined because of me. It's just something that has been for a long time that you misunderstood and now you're furious about it (isn't accusing someone of being emotional fun?!) because you're wrong.
Theme builders just have a different overall goal. Some people have goals like being able to compete, being good at endgame, getting good gear. Theme builders usually have the goal of having their characters feel like they're the real deal, not just a guy wearing the costume of a guy who he's a fan of.
You can't tell me how theme builders build and why for the reason you just stated: it's all self-imposed rules and guidelines and anything can be theme and no-one can tell you otherwise. The reason you're frustrated is because you're still trying to do it. Your current position is "Nobody can tell you otherwise, but I'm telling you otherwise" and that is a position that is guaranteed to leave you frustrated in trying to argue it.
Right. Anything can be a "theme" which is why this whole conversation is confused. The problem comes from a misunderstanding of what makes a theme character. "I've got all electricity powers!" is not the same as "I only take powers that this character would have in the reality he exists in." Both things can adhere to a "theme" but only one of those things has a bad rep for not being optimized. In truth, the term "theme character" is problematic because people understand it in different ways. The only reason I started posting in here was to shed light on why these types of character have a bad reputation, not because I'm trying to take ownership of or define any sort of concept. It just is what it always was.
Theme characters are required, by law, (and you agreed to this on the EULA) to never evolve and to have the same powers forever. When you click the "theme" button on the character creator it actually takes away the option to ever retcon, because meaningful decisions are the only real theme in real life.
Oh wait there's actually no rules on how you maintain a theme so this is a weird question. Theme builds are basically a set of self-imposed rules and guidelines for how you can or can't build your own character, and since we've already established that basically anything can be a theme and no-one can really tell you otherwise, this question really just feels like you're trying to catch me in some technicality.
Theme building is just something people do, something people have done since this game started, something that probably happened during city of heroes. I'm not trying to establish rules you must adhere by, I'm just telling you how theme builders build, why, and why they have the reputation for being weak (with character-based limits, because you want the character to feel like the one they're modeled after, and because you make sacrifices to make the character feel right).
Oof, you made a lot of assumptions here and kind of missed the point. My point was that it seems like some people want to build a theme and then keep it in stasis, and that that inflexibility leads to their issue. They can do that if they want sure, I was just pointing out a source of the problems being discussed.
Correct. If they want to "keep it in stasis" it can absolutely become an issue. I don't think I've said otherwise so maybe you're confused. Hey look now we're both doing it!
You also seem to think I need an explanation of why people theme build... I'm not sure why, considering I'm someone who does so I'm sure I know the reason already.
Sure, everybody theme builds. But that doesn't explain why you had a total misconception of what a "theme build" was and why they have a bad rep.
Oh my god, okay, imagine a guy who only punches but is left handed so he won't take haymaker. Is that a decent enough hypothetical for you or do we have to set up a research team to craft the perfect hypothetical situation to get the point across? Please submit your most perfect hypothetical situations that can clearly illustrate why someone would take one power over another or completely avoid a power due to not fitting neatly within a theme to National Geographic Themes And The Fun Of Destroying Conversation With Incessant Pedantry, c/o Nancy Reagan, PO box 4324, Canada.com.
PS- punch man doesn't exist. I don't even capitalize his name.
If you want to get a point across, it's important to use a good example. Punch Man wasn't a good example, whether he exists or not. If I had brought him up, people would absolutely have said "That's not theme you just built inside a power set" so how could he be a good example for those people to get their point across? Not sure why you went all "oh my god" over that.
Because hypothetical situations are used to illustrate a point, not prove to exacting decimal point values the quality of specific things. I could have easily said "power A is the best power in the game, obviously better than any other power in any game ever created, but a theme builder wouldn't take it if it didn't look right for his character." The specifics don't matter.
"Players". You know all the people who came in here and said that theme builds a are weak? Them. You know all the people that came in and were like "all my powers match, so you're wrong"? They're the ones that didn't understand that some people build characters that way, never even occurred to them that that kind of mindset even existed, so they assumed theme building was just taking mini mines as an aoe because your main attack was pistols (remember when mini mines was the go-to aoe? Right before launch? Do I need to craft a more perfect hypothetical situation to get the point across or should we argue about this forever?).
"Players". Yes Biff, "people". Kind of a bit vague don't you think? I was trying to narrow it down a bit more than that. The very fact that in this thread not all "players" have this reputation for theme builds in mind proves that it's not "Players" but a smaller group. Perhaps a very small group. Also again you're making a whole lot of assumptions here, many of which have been disproven throughout the course of this thread already.
I mean, do you want me to name them all individually? They're not an organized party assembling marches for the rights of theme builders. I don't have a name for them other than "all players who thought theme building was this thing instead of that thing."
It depends on the character. There's no blanket "all theme characters suck" statement because that's just plain wrong. You can't fix "fireball-only man" by being elite, it's just a concept that doesn't work. Fixing him means breaking the build, which is okay for some people, not okay for others.
And yes, since you don't get a giant chartreuse spotlight on you just for making a theme build, it's hard to spot who built their character how. Heck, before yesterday you didn't even know the limitations I imposed on myself when I built my main, which you've seen at cosmics. You didn't know it was a thing. You thought theme building was just "not making a gross frankenbuild". How on earth could you possibly blame people for something you didn't even know existed?
Well, there are people who have tried to make the blanket statement that theme characters suck. That has happened. Many times in fact. It even happened in this very thread. Also, what am I blaming people for? I didn't realize I was blaming anyone for anything, so I have to wonder where that came from.
When I said "there's no blanket statement" you shoulda kept reading to the part immediately after that said "because it's wrong". I'm not saying nobody ever said that, I'm saying that you can't say that because it's not factual.
Also th blame part was regarding you saying "oh darn to many themes" or whatever.
Wrong. Again, theme builds aren't just taking "powers that match each other." Never has been, never will be. What you're talking about may be thematic, but it's not the theme building were talking about, and it's not something that only existed or exists due to frankenbuilds (which were around when the game launched, not just starting on 2013, thank you very much). The fact is that there are still people who build characters this way, who have self-imposed limits which may or may not make the characters sub-optimal. This is just a thing that is and has been, not something I'm trying to create or rally for, so I don't get why you oppose it so much.
I never said that theme is just taking powers that match each other. In fact, I've never said that ever, in this thread or anywhere else. I also never said that theme building only exists because of frankenbuilds. What do you think I'm opposing? Have you convinced yourself that I'm opposed to a certain type of theme building? At this point it seems like you're just making up positions to argue against; positions I don't hold.
I may be wrong, and I don't really care to go back and check right now so I might just take your word for it, but I coulda sworn that you linked a video of one of your builds as proof that themes aren't weak because your powers thematically fit together.
Wrong. There's always been discussion about theme characters. Since the game launched. And you're misinterpreting what I said. It doesn't have to be a character from outside the game, but it just often is. A lot of people make characters they imagined long before the game, characters they played as in paper and pencil RPGs, and they want them to feel like those characters. If the character never shot a lightning bolt or a rocket in their lives, they're not gonna do it now, regardless of how bad it makes the character.
And this whole "theme team" business is nonsense. Two of my main characters, Biff Smackwell and Kid Knuckles, are theme and they don't "underperform". They were created in this game, for this game. Theme doesn't inherently underperform just because you ticked the Theme checkbox. Offender doesn't perform as well as them and his theme has changed from super strength to power armor to force and probably several other things in between. He's one of my least-themey characters and he gets worse scores on cosmics. So oh my god where does this place me and my dumb characters in this crazy cosmic conundrum?!
I never said there wasn't discussion about theme characters, what I said was that there was no discussion of "well your powers have synergy so you're not theme". This whole idea of "your powers all have synergy so you're not themed" is fairly new because now power sets have way more synergy to operate with, meaning that themed characters with synergy are much more likely to appear.
I don't think anyone said that having synergy means a lack of theme. I don't think I've ever heard anyone make that statement ever. So quit making things up.
Also, you took a hard left here telling me that two of your theme characters don't underperform... why do you think I need to know this? I'm one of the first people who comes along and says "theme characters can perform" when someone says they can't.
The point of telling you that is to show you that I'm not in any kind of "theme team" that I want to keep exclusive, as you seem to be convincing yourself of. I build characters all sorts of ways. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but I never swore, hand to God, that I'd adhere to making characters one way and to make sure that everyone else stepped in line with that or get branded "not theme team".
I'm not strictly on one side or the other, I'm simply telling you why theme builds have the bad rep. That's all. You thinking that I'm lobbying for some theme camp is completely made up in your head. You'd be doing the same thing as me if you went into a thread where people were saying that calculating the sum of two numbers was called division. You wouldn't be claiming that you're in some kind of addition team, you're just saying "no that's not what that means, it hasn't meant that ever."
Oh there's your problem. You think I'm REdefining, when I'm just telling you how it's been since I got here, something that people were doing long before me (cuz I didn't get into closed beta, wah!) and that people were probably doing in city of heroes long before.
The only thing I've personally proposed is possibly making a distinction between what was originally known as theme building and making a character around a cohesive theme. Because both can be suitable theme characters, but only one of those characters has any sort of self-imposed limits based on what the character would and could do. Everything else is just how it's always been. Can't blame me for that, it was like that when I got here!
And here we're back to "Nobody can tell you otherwise, but I'm telling you otherwise".
No, we're back to you having trouble understanding. No one can tell you what's a proper "theme" because that's like saying opinions as wrong. Like cilantro is gross, that can't be factual. But there's a concept of "theme builds" which I'm pretty sure we've established are foolishly named because it causes confusion, and this concept that theme builds are underpowered because when people build in this particular theme way, they impose limits on themselves to make sure the character "feels" right. Even saying things like all theme builds are bad is wrong though, because there's no single thing that ensures s theme build has to be bad. That's not part of the definition. Again, I'm not establishing rules, this is just the way some people play, and for many many years this was called "theme building" and that's all I'm telling you, in a lot more words than should be necessary.
Also you say you're not redefining..
I'm not because this whole thing existed before I came along. Correcting people is not redefining.
but then you outline your proposal for redefining theme by making a distinction between your own idea of what theme should be and what other people think theme can be.
And this was the only actual proposal I made, the only idea that really came out if my head, was simply naming these two things differently SIMPLY BECAUSE IT CAUSES CONFUSION AND IF THERE WERE BETTER NAMES FOR THEM PEOPLE COULD FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL ISSUES. I'm not trying to create something or take ownership of anything, I'm just saying call this guy Bob and this guy Larry. It isn't ground-breaking mountain-moving. Like, why bother making a distinction between dogs and cats? They're both animals, both pets, same thing, lets not discuss it. Right?
Why do we need this distinction?
See above. Distinctions don't hurt anyone.
Considering that characters in both types of theme can perform or not, then what's the use of drawing a line between them? It wouldn't help anyone saying "X theme builds underperform" because it wouldn't make that statement any more true or clear than it is now. As far as I can tell it would essentially be the same as just saying they're all theme builds and leaving it at that.
You were arguing about what a theme build was before I got into this conversation. You coulda just "left it at that" or kept arguing forever because being stubborn is fun and exciting
Now here's where I blow your mind:
All of my characters have self-imposted limits based on what the character would and could do. And in fact, all the people we're talking about who consider their characters theme, no matter which category of theme you want to put them in, also have those self-imposed limits. Some have more, some have less, so what's the use of trying to define a cutoff point that puts them in two separate groups? After all there are people with builds similar to mine, who went just a bit beyond my self-imposed limits who perform much better than I do. Should I try to draw a line between them and myself?
You can deny the "theme team" business, but you're the one trying to say people can't be on yours. I'm the one saying that we're all on the same one.
I just don't see why you want this distinction made. Is it so that people can say "X Theme builders needed the pre-fix Wardicator"? That is where this whole thing started.
Your problem is that you don't take things at face value. I don't have any motives. Fact: just about all my characters used wardicator. Fact: I haven't complained about the wardicator fix. Fact: I don't have negative feelings about the wardicator fix. Fact: I think wardicator was overperforming and fully expected it to be fixed some day and I'm not gonna ever make a drink about it because sometimes I try to act like an adult.
So no, that's not why I "want this distinction made." The only reason I believe there should be a distinction is so that in a thread about an overperforming spec, people should be talking about that overperforming spec and the alternatives to it now that it's been fixed, instead of telling people that they're wrong because X is Y when all along X has really been Z and they just didn't understand that.
No ulterior motives. Boy you shoulda worn a hat cuz I just blew your mind, right? Listen to yourself.
slight tangent, i has a "pure" pet build that used to solo (with great difficulty) Andrith Ruins (been a few months now), without a block, energy unlock and neither of best defense or aggressive stance >.> her theme is entirely "i summon stuff and boss everyone around" >.< essentially boosting pet dmg by criting heals and using commander spec; so that might be something you could use... tho she obv isn't for cosmic stuff since as far as i understand pets are a huge hinderance there
When I mentioned the pet build and messing around with it, end game is exactly what I had in mind.
Whilst her actual theme (Technopath and metal manip, super intelligent etc) could be represented MANY different ways in CO, I chose to go for a more supportive route with her relying on the gadgets and robots she creates in order to "fight", whilst also supporting her team / those around her. (I was taken by the Inventor AT when I first had her, since I was Silver before I went gold and then LTS)
I've been building for a while and whilst Commander spec is useful...I think the deeper problem is just pets in general. So I'm actually considering moving her into a DPS role or at least a more directed support role.
Whilst she mechanically works quite well...I know she could be maybe not "better" but more directed in a specific way which allows her to remain in theme but also makes her mechanically different in order to pursue endgame if I wanted.
I've worked for endgame gear with her, got all my pieces etc I just went to Cosmics without pets...which was a bit rough in terms of my actual damage output...but I got through.
Ideally I'd just like to do more than "get through", because that feels horrible when you're used to doing more than just "getting through".
So my personal project is to either wait and see if Gadgeteering is improved along with the pet system...or simply relegate the idea of tech pets to the devices I have (or leaving them as other characters I have) and focus the build on doing something more productive and fun.
Which honestly isn't difficult at all for me, I'm just reluctant to change, but I could easily go: PA or Gadgets DPS, CC/Healer, Greater Pet Master and still be in theme and work very well.
(I always hoped there would be a tech passive which functioned like a mash up of AoED, AoRP & Targeting Computer for self and pets)
It's just that the way in which the end game has been set up to work...it can feel like it alienates some aspects of the game's building ability...a la pets.
If people remember, some endgame encounters had to be adjusted or added to try and desperately make Crowd Control marginally relevant in terms of direct contribution to the main fight. Kiga for example, used to "just" require 5 tanks and 5 or 6 dedicated healers. No CC necessary. Along with the zone restrictions and the scaling...it became apparent that something else was needed. Devs made a few tweaks and CC gradually became more viable in those specific instances.
Similar thing with Ape, people used to nuke hearts. However this was not seen as a great solution by Devs so it was changed to force the idea that CC was relevant in this encounter, so now, people CC the hearts.
It seems to be the case that this isn't going to change, so I'd kinda be miffed to see that happen with the pet system...since much like the CC system, it really should be re-worked but there's not enough time or resources from what I gather.
At least the current CC system is at least workable for side parts in several endgame situations. Which apparently translates into "CC system is fine ", which I think was the intention all along to try and make it look fine. Quite honestly they've done a good job doing that, so I'm glad we can use the current CC system in a few specific instances where they are working alone (soloing or solo CCing the hearts/dogs etc), without it falling apart completely. The CC system could definitely be better, I've always said that. But for now, in my view it is satisfactory and really it seems that's all it needs to be.
On the other hand, Pets from what I've HEARD, seem to make each scenario problematic or are just a waste of time. Combined with their buggy AI, they just need help. At least CC was given a bandaid lol
yeah, i know your pain as far as pets go >.< i mean i can mess around in the QWZ with my pet master buuuuuut cosmics wouldn't work naturally buuuut i don't really care about doing cosmic stuff unless a friend is running it then i tag along to halp.
personally i can completely understand why pets aren't that big a priority or even needed for end game stuff still, wishful thinking, hee
and that mash up passive for pets would be awesome, incidently i use both AoRP and AoED (more often the latter) for this build
along with non targetted heals all over the place... and without pets i just have an energy builder really lol, buuuuut this entire setup is okay for the stuff i want to do and knock-on-wood, the pets have been behaving for me so far in all content, tho recently they seem to have gotten extra squishy in alerts, i need to test that part more
if pets ever get overhauled, man, we'll prolly get sick of seeing so many pets then, coz am psure there are many folk who like to be petmasters of some kind or the other lol, so hoping that day isn't too far off
P.S.: i kinda miss the old cosmics (nostalgia mostly and for no real practical reasons)
people should be talking about that overperforming spec and the alternatives to it now that it's been fixed
yeaaah i had initially wanted to ask for an easy-all build viable spec combo but got distracted by theme stuff coz well, themes are fun >.>
so guys need an easy spec combo that lets me have good/decent survival+dakka so i can resume trying to get dmg/kill perks while soloing non end game content on my one chara that was initially using wardicator loop coz i will be moving passives and forms in and out coz am jus trying to get the obnoxiously long list of perks coz apparently am a masochist >.>
i generally use the powerhouse's battlestation with team set to five and hardest opponents then aggro the whole map, if i survive, this works >.> my tanks and petmaster still can buuuut former wardicator one can't, so i wanna be able to have a combo that lets me do that again please >.<
currently am playing her w/ protector and guardian (and strength) specs which gives her great survival but.... no real boom >.< need boom! gimme boom!
So no, that's not why I "want this distinction made." The only reason I believe there should be a distinction is so that in a thread about an overperforming spec, people should be talking about that overperforming spec and the alternatives to it now that it's been fixed, instead of telling people that they're wrong because X is Y when all along X has really been Z and they just didn't understand that.
We don't need the distinction for that though. In fact, the distinction in no way helps to promote that. If anything the distinction would just create a slightly different version of what happens now. People would say "X theme builds needed this" and the argument will continue there, just with a different phrase instead of "theme builds". If anything the new distinction would only enforce the idea that "being theme" is holding people down because now they have a special new phrase for their special brand of ultra-theme.
You know what would promote the thing you want? Forgetting about defining theme, forgetting about categorizing theme, saying that theme is whatever you want it to be, and no longer attributing anything to theme. Once you stop talking about theme and if you qualify as this or that definition of it, and if performance effects happen because of it, and instead start talking about what your specific build needs completely apart from theme, then the thing you want happens, people talking about the mechanics involved and how to move forward.
Just abandon the distinction thing, it's useless and pointless.
That's all well and good but that's not gonna stop people from building around a theme, whether you have a word for it or not. It's still gonna be a thing, just like it always was. So when someone's like "yeah thanks for the build help, that makes sense but it doesn't fit my character's theme so I'm gonna go with something different" we can respond with "oh now I understand, you build your character just like 100% of everyone else" just so we can be stubborn. And when people start talking about the differences between hybrid and dps and tanks we can say "why put a label on it, they're all just builds" because categorizing them will just confuse people that think you can do damage as a tank!
So when someone's like "yeah thanks for the build help, that makes sense but it doesn't fit my character's theme so I'm gonna go with something different" we can respond with "oh now I understand, you build your character just like 100% of everyone else" just so we can be stubborn.
First of all, no. We would respond "Oh, you should have told me your theme first, so I could tailor my advice to that. Now that I know it, I can do so." That's generally how it actually goes at least.
Second, how would this situation be improved with what you're suggesting? It would be just as dumb to say "Oh I see, you are a such-and-such theme builder". No, you just ask for the theme and then give them advice tailored to the theme. Or, even better and more realistically, the person says the theme when they're first asking for the advice so it's clear at the outset what they have in mind - again this is what people normally do.
If someone wants to make Fireball wizard, they would say "I want to make a character whose only attack is Fireball". No further distinction or classification required. Advice might still stray out of what that person is willing to use, and that would be the case even if they classified themselves as a certain type of theme builder, because only they know what they will accept and that information would not be expressed through a classification. Simply put, the distinction doesn't add anything here... except maybe some awkwardness as people wonder why the person is declaring themselves as an "X Theme Builder".
And when people start talking about the differences between hybrid and dps and tanks we can say "why put a label on it, they're all just builds" because categorizing them will just confuse people that think you can do damage as a tank!
Ultimate Success!
Hybrid, Tank, and DPS roles have absolute differences that are not subjective. They're not debatable distinctions, they're coded into the game. It's different from subjectively classifying people based on why and how they build their theme characters, ya know? You're a bit off the rails with this one.
So my personal project is to either wait and see if Gadgeteering is improved along with the pet system...or simply relegate the idea of tech pets to the devices I have (or leaving them as other characters I have) and focus the build on doing something more productive and fun.
Speaking of tech-themed pet devices... You can get a Robotic factory device from the Destroids Rise Again OM. It's a BoE perm device that summons a robotic arm to smack enemies and also it's a pet that summons more pets! specifically Destroids.
Oh my god, okay, imagine a guy who only punches but is left handed so he won't take haymaker. Is that a decent enough hypothetical for you or do we have to set up a research team to craft the perfect hypothetical situation to get the point across? Please submit your most perfect hypothetical situations that can clearly illustrate why someone would take one power over another or completely avoid a power due to not fitting neatly within a theme to National Geographic Themes And The Fun Of Destroying Conversation With Incessant Pedantry, c/o Nancy Reagan, PO box 4324, Canada.com.
Actually, yes you do need to come up with a decent example. Using a rubbish example doesn't prove a point, it makes you look bad because it FAILS to prove the point.
So, next I will define what I think it needs in order to be a good example, because otherwise mentioning the concept is a waste of time.
1: it needs to be a proper superhero. All player characters in Champions Online are defined by the game as a superhero worthy of being treated by the Champions as an equal. So for it to be a solid character concept it needs to be someone who actually has the ability to fight supervillains and win.
2: It needs to be an example that can't get better than 50% on the percentage accuracy scale I posted earlier. IE if it's a concept that CAN be built in CO then it's not proof that it's possible to have a superhero theme that requires a sub-optimal build.
So my personal project is to either wait and see if Gadgeteering is improved along with the pet system...or simply relegate the idea of tech pets to the devices I have (or leaving them as other characters I have) and focus the build on doing something more productive and fun.
Speaking of tech-themed pet devices... You can get a Robotic factory device from the Destroids Rise Again OM. It's a BoE perm device that summons a robotic arm to smack enemies and also it's a pet that summons more pets! specifically Destroids.
Oh my god, okay, imagine a guy who only punches but is left handed so he won't take haymaker. Is that a decent enough hypothetical for you or do we have to set up a research team to craft the perfect hypothetical situation to get the point across? Please submit your most perfect hypothetical situations that can clearly illustrate why someone would take one power over another or completely avoid a power due to not fitting neatly within a theme to National Geographic Themes And The Fun Of Destroying Conversation With Incessant Pedantry, c/o Nancy Reagan, PO box 4324, Canada.com.
Actually, yes you do need to come up with a decent example. Using a rubbish example doesn't prove a point, it makes you look bad because it FAILS to prove the point.
So, next I will define what I think it needs in order to be a good example, because otherwise mentioning the concept is a waste of time.
1: it needs to be a proper superhero. All player characters in Champions Online are defined by the game as a superhero worthy of being treated by the Champions as an equal. So for it to be a solid character concept it needs to be someone who actually has the ability to fight supervillains and win.
2: It needs to be an example that can't get better than 50% on the percentage accuracy scale I posted earlier. IE if it's a concept that CAN be built in CO then it's not proof that it's possible to have a superhero theme that requires a sub-optimal build.
He actually has but in honesty a lot of people have still got pre-defined notions in their heads so it won't be interpreted fully.
1.) No not really.
2.) Well, see, no one said it's required. Again, lost in translation. For the Builder of said theme it might be. I mean, are you honestly going to tell someone they can't build the way they want to for a certain theme they fabricated because it might be sub-optimal. (The one-attack/fireball person biff mentioned earlier comes to mind), and barring that, because the obvious answer is no, you wouldn't be able to KNOW if anyone is building a sub-optimal theme build because, through common sense, you don't know every single player in the game/how they're building to a specific theme
Buffing everything to stupid high levels and nerfing everything to piss poor levels yields the same results, but not the same community reactions.
Again, I offer Staredown as an example. He's certainly able to "fight supervillains and win" - you don't make it to lvl 24 by sheer force of charisma, especially when you're leveling in the Desert. But his build is... less than optimal, due entirely to the fact that his powers are themed around eye-beams and such. If it can't emanate from the face, he can't use it. I'm currently holding a power slot open, in fact, because I can't figure out what power to justify putting there for him.
Another example was a toon I tried to build themed entirely around his pistols. Turned out he ran out of powers to use pretty doggone quick.
For that matter, I'm really not sure where to go in the development of Spider-Bat any more. Strength, agility, some gadgets, check; martial arts, check; but gadgets and martial arts don't work together as well as you might have imagined. He is what he is, and I have to deal with that if I want to play the character I envisioned, but he's not exactly "optimized", ya know?
"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!"
Well I guess nobody was really willing to put up much of a fight for the idea that anyone actually needed the old wardicator, or that the nerf was a big deal. I guess the matter is settled then. Good thread!
Now let's all of us theme builders get back to buildin' themes o3o together, as one. Group hug?
people should be talking about that overperforming spec and the alternatives to it now that it's been fixed
yeaaah i had initially wanted to ask for an easy-all build viable spec combo but got distracted by theme stuff coz well, themes are fun >.>
so guys need an easy spec combo that lets me have good/decent survival+dakka so i can resume trying to get dmg/kill perks while soloing non end game content on my one chara that was initially using wardicator loop coz i will be moving passives and forms in and out coz am jus trying to get the obnoxiously long list of perks coz apparently am a masochist >.>
i generally use the powerhouse's battlestation with team set to five and hardest opponents then aggro the whole map, if i survive, this works >.> my tanks and petmaster still can buuuut former wardicator one can't, so i wanna be able to have a combo that lets me do that again please >.<
currently am playing her w/ protector and guardian (and strength) specs which gives her great survival but.... no real boom >.< need boom! gimme boom!
Topic's intent was basically to tell peope "Haha we're right, you're wrong. Deal with it!". PSA? Yeah right.
Thread for the most part has been about constructive discussion on Wardicator changes. Granted it did a segway into the subject of theme-building, but eh, it's hardly anything to overreact about and say "You've turned my threadz into -insert irrelevant hyperbole-!".
Hybrid, Tank, and DPS roles have absolute differences that are not subjective. They're not debatable distinctions, they're coded into the game. It's different from subjectively classifying people based on why and how they build their theme characters, ya know? You're a bit off the rails with this one.
Nope. There's an obvious and noticeable difference between how people have been "theme building" since the beginning of the game and "picking powers that make sense together, aesthetically or mechanically." The fact that I can so easily distinguish the two is proof enough that there's a difference. You're just too stubborn to admit it.
Actually, yes you do need to come up with a decent example. Using a rubbish example doesn't prove a point, it makes you look bad because it FAILS to prove the point.
So, next I will define what I think it needs in order to be a good example, because otherwise mentioning the concept is a waste of time.
1: it needs to be a proper superhero. All player characters in Champions Online are defined by the game as a superhero worthy of being treated by the Champions as an equal. So for it to be a solid character concept it needs to be someone who actually has the ability to fight supervillains and win.
2: It needs to be an example that can't get better than 50% on the percentage accuracy scale I posted earlier. IE if it's a concept that CAN be built in CO then it's not proof that it's possible to have a superhero theme that requires a sub-optimal build.
I don't know, I think the extreme example serves a very legitimate purpose of describing the nature of the situation. First off I called it out right there that it was an extreme example, so obviously in all but big red letters I said "this isn't something that normally happens but lets use our imaginations." Does a real-world example really help?
If it's necessary, fine, I provided plenty of other real-world examples. Anyway.
1. You know, the way people define "superhero" on this forum when they're asking for non-superhero costumes often comes down to "any being that can do something above and beyond what a normal human can do." Trust me I've had this conversation with many people, and that's what it boils down to for them. But I'll play along because I don't agree with that assessment. I just like that this bar changes to fit people's current needs, but I don't think I've ever seen you say that. Anyway, I'm not sure how this helps to define if a character is a concept character. First off a lot of people's concepts are "villains" and second, a lot of them are "non-super-powered vigilantes" that wouldn't be recognized as equals by the Champions. Even if we did meet all those conditions, I don't think "proper superhero" has anything to do with whether a build is a theme build or not. So I'll disagree here. Remember, we're talking about what motivates a player to choose the powers the way they do.
2. "proof that it's possible to have a superhero theme that requires a sub-optimal build." I never said anything like this. I never said that a theme has a requirement to be poorly performing. Themes can be just about anything. A theme build can be a good performer, it can be a terrible performer, a normal build can also be a good performer or a bad performer. Again all I'm talking about is the motivations a player has for choosing powers. Where those powers end up is far beyond the point.
Like, imagine you're dead set on making Spider-Man. Which powers would you choose? Would you choose Force Cascade because it does big damage and you just say it's a big ball of high-velocity webbing? Some people will say "sure, let's do that! The power is great and flashy and effective." Others will say "nope, it just doesn't look like a web ball." Both ways of choosing this power are "correct" but one way might lead to a better- or worse-performing character. Same thing with Swinging. The effect is correct, but if you're dead-set on replicating the theme to a T, you won't take it because of the grappling gun. Or you can say it's Spider-Man trying things out without his Web Shooters.
So, I don't know if you thought I was using Fireball Man as an example of how bad a theme build has to be. It seems this might be what you're getting out of it. My point is that if a person is creating the character, regardless of if it's bad or the best character ever, they're only going to pick that one power because that's the character they're trying to make. They're trying to make a guy that knows one spell. If you end up making a guy that knows 14 spells, then you didn't actually make the one-spell guy, right?
...while waiting on someone to drop some knowledge on me for the following:
I'd love to help you out honestly, but I haven't even respecced any of my characters yet. My characters just about all use wardicator, but I just left them like they are.
Hybrid, Tank, and DPS roles have absolute differences that are not subjective. They're not debatable distinctions, they're coded into the game. It's different from subjectively classifying people based on why and how they build their theme characters, ya know? You're a bit off the rails with this one.
Nope. There's an obvious and noticeable difference between how people have been "theme building" since the beginning of the game and "picking powers that make sense together, aesthetically or mechanically." The fact that I can so easily distinguish the two is proof enough that there's a difference. You're just too stubborn to admit it.
This x100.
An example of theme building: Back in the day I made a character whose powers were meant to emulate the 10 plagues of Egypt. The power choices reflected that theme, regardless of the cohesion of the build (though I did try to make it work as well as possible with that constraint in mind, ie I had an aura, an AoE, single target, etc.) I took Locust Breath because it was a locust power first, AoE second and with no other reason needed. Other power choices were similarly theme-first, utility second.
An example that is not theme building: A character who is supposed to have super strength picking the most synergistic, powerful Might abilities or essentially building an AT.
An example of something in between: Mixing and matching wind and lightning powers on a storm-powered hero, prioritizing powers that work well together over flashy ones.
I'd love to help you out honestly, but I haven't even respecced any of my characters yet. My characters just about all use wardicator, but I just left them like they are.
yeah, but i got restless with my one wardicator >.< hoping the other build guru's can point at better alternatives that are more rounded off rather than specialized towards tank/dps
psure it was hinted earlier in the thread that there were better alternatives but dunno if that was meant for rounded off or specialized... and am NOT scrolling through all that again... yet >.<
There's an obvious and noticeable difference between how people have been "theme building" since the beginning of the game and "picking powers that make sense together, aesthetically or mechanically."
my brain still views them both as themes just... former is strict theme and the latter is a loose theme...
...there's a joke in there somewhere and i better get points for it by the time i figure it out
There's an obvious and noticeable difference between how people have been "theme building" since the beginning of the game and "picking powers that make sense together, aesthetically or mechanically."
my brain still views them both as themes just... former is strict theme and the latter is a loose theme...
...there's a joke in there somewhere and i better get points for it by the time i figure it out
That and the two things are simply degrees of the same thing.
There's an obvious and noticeable difference between how people have been "theme building" since the beginning of the game and "picking powers that make sense together, aesthetically or mechanically."
my brain still views them both as themes just... former is strict theme and the latter is a loose theme...
...there's a joke in there somewhere and i better get points for it by the time i figure it out
my brain still views them both as themes just... former is strict theme and the latter is a loose theme...
Eh, if someone chooses all electric powers because their theme is "girl who can manipulate electricity"... is that a loose theme or a strict them tho? They adhered to the theme pretty strictly, ya know?
Nope. There's an obvious and noticeable difference between how people have been "theme building" since the beginning of the game and "picking powers that make sense together, aesthetically or mechanically." The fact that I can so easily distinguish the two is proof enough that there's a difference. You're just too stubborn to admit it.
See again, you don't even understand what I'm saying. I acknowledge that there are different kinds of theme builders, but I recognize it as being subjective and not as distinct as say the character roles are. There is no absolute cut-off line between types, and many of them will cross the barrier you're trying to say is absolute.
If I showed you a character who uses all electric powers and is pretty strong, you would say "nope, not theme builder". But then I mention to you that the person has been making comic books about this character for years. So what, now they're not a theme builder because their theme happens to use powers that make sense together aesthetically and mechanically? No, they sit in both of your categories. Many theme builders do, because not all theme builders strictly don't care about performance at all, some care a bit more, some more still, and some care a lot. Caring about performance or incidentally having good performance does not disqualify someone from being a theme. It's just plain ridiculous that you want to pretend there's some arbitrary cutoff point where suddenly they're not a theme builder just because their powers happen to work too well together by design.
You yourself have characters that fit into this. You yourself have characters that if I had made them and showed them to you, you would say "nope, not theme builder character". You're just too stubborn to see all of these things that make your "distinction" not as black and white as you want them to be for the purposes of this argument.
Eh, if someone chooses all electric powers because their theme is "girl who can manipulate electricity"... is that a loose theme or a strict them tho? They adhered to the theme pretty strictly, ya know?
point, but the theme itself seems loose/strict based on how the player envisions it
which brings me back to my group 1 and 2 distinction because i think that (obv self bias) it covers both groups fairly well enough
group 1: theme + head cannon appeal
group 2: theme + head cannon appeal + mechanics/synergy appeal
and the distinction is needed because we have in a broad sense these two groups of players kinda biting at each other over the word "theme" itself, when that itself isn't the issue, the issue always seems to be more along the lines of "can a theme be optimized"
some in 2 feel theme should not be an "excuse" for poor optimization, and that is rather unfair, because only a select few in group 1 would claim theme = poor performance guaranteed (so far, none here have done so as far as i see) however,
@jonsills gives a great example of a group 1 build that just can't be very well optimized nor is he using it as an excuse
btw i do appreciate this (hijacked) thread because we need to all come to some sort of agreement over what the actual issue is, i feel it is not theme alone, theme is a part of it
also both you and @biffsmackwell come up with great examples to prove your points and you both are kinda right but i wish you'd realize that (at least from my perspective) aside from sorta talking past each other, you are all focusing on theme+theme itself too much rather than theme+...something, dunno if it should be mechanics or what, am not good at asplainin'
what am trying to say is that the word "theme" is fairly understood by all equally well enough, the issue arises when ppl say "theme build" because now it can mean it is either a) mechanically viable or b) mechanically non viable
group 2 might jump on that and go all themes can be made viable, if so i present to you lot again that facebeamdude exmple above
group 1 might jump on that and go all themes have to deal with a handicap and have to give up stuff in exchange, if so there are plenty of group 2 build examples in the powers thread
when these two above jumps happen is when it becomes this whole circular mess >.<
guys i love this debate buuuuuuuuut can we pleaaaaase be a lil less snarky coz i think the sorting of this ... entire thing can only be healthy for the community... till it's not and then whatever >.> i get dibs on delivering the first chairshot+piledriver+legdrop combo
Here I made a chart for how to categorize theme builders.
Going by this chart we have about 11 different types of theme builders. So now we just have to find names for all of them and figure out who goes where. I mean hey if we're going to make distinctions we should at least be accurate and account for everything involved right? 2 just isn't enough.
some in 2 feel theme should not be an "excuse" for poor optimization, and that is rather unfair, because only a select few in group 1 would claim theme = poor performance guaranteed (so far, none here have done so as far as i see) however,
Well it's plenty fair considering that when we say that, we always say it directly to the people making that claim. After all, if nobody is making this claim then how would the argument start to begin with? Nobody just randomly goes into a thread and says "Oh and by the way everyone remember that theme builds can still be strong!". No, someone says "I needed this broken mechanic because of my theme build" and that's how it starts. Every. Single. Time. Because I hate when people spread this garbage about theme builds being weak and I will argue against it every single time I see it.
And yes, someone in this thread did make that claim.
Here I made a chart for how to categorize theme builders.
Going by this chart we have about 11 different types of theme builders. So now we just have to find names for all of them and figure out who goes where.
I'm firmly Type Yellow, which is why Staredown is weak and Captain Mercaptan isn't, even though they're both "theme builds".
"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!"
Well, just found my place on the chart.
Maybe this is why it's so hard for me to find builds I like.
Although technically, "care about top score" should have a portion outside the "theme builders" if it's going to properly represent people.
Yeah, this is pretty much the same as my approach. All my characters are the result of a lot of careful consideration of what I want to do. Why do I care about mechanical strength? Well, I visualize Tanya Wilson as someone who can break giant robots with her bare hands. So for the character to be a faithful recreation she needs to be able to give the enemy things a good thrashing and as-is her Haymaker can knock things so hard I can't even see where the body landed. I LOVE that! It makes the character feel like someone who has incredible superhuman strength.
And yes, someone in this thread did make that claim.
i stand corrected >.< but yeah if someone demands performance but refuses to understand/realize the reality of having to compromise their theme even a tiny bit... yeah they deserve all the ridicule they can get >.>
also i sit firmly between the looks and playstyle and at times... i lean towards mechanics for group content / tagging with friends etc. but not much, juuuuuuust enough to get by and not sabotage the stuff is all
I'd love to help you out honestly, but I haven't even respecced any of my characters yet. My characters just about all use wardicator, but I just left them like they are.
yeah, but i got restless with my one wardicator >.< hoping the other build guru's can point at better alternatives that are more rounded off rather than specialized towards tank/dps
psure it was hinted earlier in the thread that there were better alternatives but dunno if that was meant for rounded off or specialized... and am NOT scrolling through all that again... yet >.<
You know, I kinda spoke too soon because I realized that I haven't really been playing cosmics for a long while so I don't exactly know how much my characters are affected. Basically only done Red Winter since. Oops. :P
See again, you don't even understand what I'm saying.
No, you.
I acknowledge that there are different kinds of theme builders, but I recognize it as being subjective and not as distinct as say the character roles are. There is no absolute cut-off line between types, and many of them will cross the barrier you're trying to say is absolute.
See, this is wrong. You either build your character adhering to strict guidelines, or you don't. Sure you could go halfway and build a character around a specific theme and just "bend" on some powers like Spider-Man using Swinging. It's still Spider-Man themed but the aesthetics are a bit off.
If I showed you a character who uses all electric powers and is pretty strong, you would say "nope, not theme builder".
See, it's obviously you that doesn't understand. Why would I say that? It's not until you tell me that the character is built as a theme, a certain concept, that I'd ever even start to know if it was a theme character or not. It's not something you can just look at a list of powers and determine that. Heck, a theme build and a purely-optimized build could be the exact same thing. It's only a theme build if that was the intent of the player.
But then I mention to you that the person has been making comic books about this character for years. So what, now they're not a theme builder because their theme happens to use powers that make sense together aesthetically and mechanically?
See, where have I even said anything like this? Okay, here's how people approach "theme building." "I have this character in my head that I wanna make in Champions. I'm not gonna take any abilities that the character in my head doesn't have. So I pick this, this this and that. Cool, I have my build themed around this character, and when I play him, I feel like I'm playing this character, not just a pile of stats." The other way: "I'm gonna make a character. Hmm, what should I make? I already played a gun character to 40, I think maybe I'll try fire this time around. So I'll take this fire power, that fire power, and even though rocket launcher does fire damage, I'm not gonna take that because the character uses superpowers to make fire, not gizmos. Cool, now I have a character whose powers are thematic and fit a cool superhero aesthetic." (Of course I'm not going to talk about all the different ways to make characters, this is just touching on two types of "theme" building and why they are distinct.)
You see the difference? That's the reason that I think a different word should be used for one and the other because by definition they both are adhering to a "theme", but people have been talking about theme characters referring to characters created around the first example. Now, this has nothing to do with me; people have been defining theme characters like this for almost 10 years. I didn't come up with the term, I just use it the way everyone else has.
No, they sit in both of your categories. Many theme builders do, because not all theme builders strictly don't care about performance at all, some care a bit more, some more still, and some care a lot. Caring about performance or incidentally having good performance does not disqualify someone from being a theme.
Correct. I've been saying over and over again that performance isn't directly tied to whether a build is theme or not. In fact I've said various times that you can have bad theme builds, good theme builds, bad regular builds, and good regular builds. No mutual exclusivity here. The fact is though, that theme builds have a bad reputation for being bad, because the people who build them restrict which powers their characters can use. Again, not about me, I didn't spread this around, it's just been there for years and years and years.
It's just plain ridiculous that you want to pretend there's some arbitrary cutoff point where suddenly they're not a theme builder just because their powers happen to work too well together by design.
The ridiculous part is that you think this is the case. Seriously go back and read my posts here. I say they have a bad rep (which they do; just read all the comments about it before I even stepped in here), I didn't say that the rep was completely true, ever. Builds all run the gamut, regardless of being any kind of theme or just a collection of powers.
You yourself have characters that fit into this. You yourself have characters that if I had made them and showed them to you, you would say "nope, not theme builder character". You're just too stubborn to see all of these things that make your "distinction" not as black and white as you want them to be for the purposes of this argument.
Yeah no. You're arguing from a place of complete misunderstanding.
Yes, it's true, I have characters that are theme, some of them builds are good, some of them bad, I have characters that are not theme, some of them good, some of them bad. Some of them stick to theme pretty closely, some of them bend a little bit, others I don't even care.
Hopefully explanation 4.7 will finally drive the point home and you'll get what I'm saying.
group 1 might jump on that and go all themes have to deal with a handicap and have to give up stuff in exchange, if so there are plenty of group 2 build examples in the powers thread
I kinda disagree with this but only because I think it's worded a little off. Theme builders do have to deal with a handicap that is self-imposed restrictions, but that handicap does not ever ensure or require the build to be sub-optimal.
No, someone says "I needed this broken mechanic because of my theme build"
And see, I'm not even trying to defend this. I'm 100% fine with the wardicator fix, whether it cripples my characters or not. I have huge doubts that it'll completely destroy my builds (I was just taking it because it was more stats. Who doesn't want more stats?), so I'm like whatever. Should the game change to cater specifically to theme builders? Yes and no. The game should allow theme builders to participate (it does) but broken mechanics, especially ones that are causing instabilities, should absolutely be fixed and not used as a crutch. I mean, if something is too good, and everyone is using it, recognize that it's too good and expect it to be changed in the future. Rule of thumb.
group 1 might jump on that and go all themes have to deal with a handicap and have to give up stuff in exchange, if so there are plenty of group 2 build examples in the powers thread
I kinda disagree with this but only because I think it's worded a little off. Theme builders do have to deal with a handicap that is self-imposed restrictions, but that handicap does not ever ensure or require the build to be sub-optimal.
yup that is what i meant, that they do, but to only the extent the player's own rules, and i'm psure there are enough build guru's who can provide an alternative to that restriction but yes, to an extent and not always >.>
You know, I kinda spoke too soon because I realized that I haven't really been playing cosmics for a long while so I don't exactly know how much my characters are affected. Basically only done Red Winter since. Oops. :P
i ended up changing mine after she stopped passing that stress-test in the battlestation, she can now survive, since am used to tank style but no way to make up for the loss in boom quantity without power dependence, o well; trying to use specs for tanky stuff and passive/form for dpsy kinda is working atm
And see, I'm not even trying to defend this. I'm 100% fine with the wardicator fix, whether it cripples my characters or not. I have huge doubts that it'll completely destroy my builds (I was just taking it because it was more stats. Who doesn't want more stats?), so I'm like whatever. Should the game change to cater specifically to theme builders? Yes and no. The game should allow theme builders to participate (it does) but broken mechanics, especially ones that are causing instabilities, should absolutely be fixed and not used as a crutch. I mean, if something is too good, and everyone is using it, recognize that it's too good and expect it to be changed in the future. Rule of thumb.
Yeah, I know you're not trying to defend it. You've said as much several times. Now point out on my chart which color of theme builder you are o3o I'm a dark green
Yeah, I don't go in looking for a certain way for it to play. I go in looking for a certain look and effectiveness, and the playstyle arises as a result of that. I like adapting to new playstyles so it works out.
Comments
That aside, it seems we all actually share more or less the same idea of what makes a theme build a theme build. Which is a good thing.
Whilst it may not be possible for all your builds, I'd suggest picking one you are most comfortable "messing" with to see if you can alter them for endgame content, IF you wanted to join with those.
That's something I'm having to do with some of my builds (Pet build in particular, and I just did this for my AoPMer.)
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
__________________________
Well, their builds were old and had powers that have been revamped/changed by now and so I've actually been tossing around ideas on how to change them while keeping them in theme. Chances are they will get stronger for these changes even without me really meaning to make them stronger. While I like keeping theme, I can more often than not figure out how some power does fit into the theme, even if at first it doesn't look like it.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Is it required that your character's story stops once you start playing them in order for them to be "strictly themed"? Like, are they not allowed to learn and evolve as part of their continuing story here in the game.
Not really a great example, since you're not really lowering the potential of a Might character by not taking UR - it's a great power sure, but as a performance person I wouldn't feel the need to take it on a Brick ( or any Ultimate on any character, they're certainly not required for top performance ). I mean there really is no "best aoe around" anymore. It used to be Lead Tempest and Epidemic, but now we have several aoes that effectively do what they do, and a bunch of other aoes that do things they don't that put them on equal footing. The whole "Rocket Launcher is the best aoe around so all the min-maxers take it" thing is kind of an old issue that no longer exists, so it wouldn't really effect what we're talking about anymore.
I don't think Punch Man is really a good example for this anyways since he's more of an example of a theme that you could both stick to thematically and make really strong by just taking powers that have good synergy - you could even do it by just taking powers from the Might tree. I dare say Biff, if it was me who had brought up Punch Man you might be denying that he's a theme character according to your definition, telling me "well you just made him according to synergies etc".
But now I'm wondering... among whom did they get this reputation? It seems like every time this gets brought up, someone says "my theme characters suck cause theme" and then all the elites swarm in to say "it's not cause of theme, theme builds can be very strong". I mean, I've certainly never seen someone during a cosmic or a TA say "OH DARN, too many theme builds here to succeed!". Though of course I might start saying it now for funsies.
See I think this whole thing came out of the "frankenbuild era" (2013-2015ish?), where we basically had figured out an optimal setup that just left like 3 slots for "theme" powers. So back then it was frankenbuilds vs theme builds, theme builds being the ones that deviated from the frankenbuild setup and having greatly lowered performance by comparison. However, we no longer live in that era. The days of the frankenbuild are pretty much dead, and whatever is left of it are quickly being scrubbed away. That's why now when you say "theme build" as it was defined back then many of the characters you're talking about are topping Cosmic scoreboards, and tanking/healing/CCing cosmics, steamrolling alerts, soloing the QWarzone, etc...
It is interesting that back then there was no discussion on if you were theme if you adhered to a set, since back then doing that was nerfing your toon just like a "captain rockets and lightning bolts" theme would. There was no talk about "it has to be a character from outside of the game" or anything like that, we were all just theme builders that were less powerful than the frankenbuilders. Now that some of these themes can perform, suddenly the other half of the team no longer wants them on the theme team. Too strong to belong.
I guess I just don't see the point in redefining theme just so more people can be excluded.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
strongly inclined to agree here; i remember that era very well and yeah psure thats where the real big divide was and right now, i mainly have issues with form toggles but definitely waaaaay better to do theme stuff now and be viable
slight tangent, i has a "pure" pet build that used to solo (with great difficulty) Andrith Ruins (been a few months now), without a block, energy unlock and neither of best defense or aggressive stance >.> her theme is entirely "i summon stuff and boss everyone around" >.< essentially boosting pet dmg by criting heals and using commander spec; so that might be something you could use... tho she obv isn't for cosmic stuff since as far as i understand pets are a huge hinderance there
Theme characters are required, by law, (and you agreed to this on the EULA) to never evolve and to have the same powers forever. When you click the "theme" button on the character creator it actually takes away the option to ever retcon, because meaningful decisions are the only real theme in real life.
Oh wait there's actually no rules on how you maintain a theme so this is a weird question. Theme builds are basically a set of self-imposed rules and guidelines for how you can or can't build your own character, and since we've already established that basically anything can be a theme and no-one can really tell you otherwise, this question really just feels like you're trying to catch me in some technicality.
Theme building is just something people do, something people have done since this game started, something that probably happened during city of heroes. I'm not trying to establish rules you must adhere by, I'm just telling you how theme builders build, why, and why they have the reputation for being weak (with character-based limits, because you want the character to feel like the one they're modeled after, and because you make sacrifices to make the character feel right).
Oh my god, okay, imagine a guy who only punches but is left handed so he won't take haymaker. Is that a decent enough hypothetical for you or do we have to set up a research team to craft the perfect hypothetical situation to get the point across? Please submit your most perfect hypothetical situations that can clearly illustrate why someone would take one power over another or completely avoid a power due to not fitting neatly within a theme to National Geographic Themes And The Fun Of Destroying Conversation With Incessant Pedantry, c/o Nancy Reagan, PO box 4324, Canada.com.
PS- punch man doesn't exist. I don't even capitalize his name.
"Players". You know all the people who came in here and said that theme builds a are weak? Them. You know all the people that came in and were like "all my powers match, so you're wrong"? They're the ones that didn't understand that some people build characters that way, never even occurred to them that that kind of mindset even existed, so they assumed theme building was just taking mini mines as an aoe because your main attack was pistols (remember when mini mines was the go-to aoe? Right before launch? Do I need to craft a more perfect hypothetical situation to get the point across or should we argue about this forever?).
It depends on the character. There's no blanket "all theme characters suck" statement because that's just plain wrong. You can't fix "fireball-only man" by being elite, it's just a concept that doesn't work. Fixing him means breaking the build, which is okay for some people, not okay for others.
And yes, since you don't get a giant chartreuse spotlight on you just for making a theme build, it's hard to spot who built their character how. Heck, before yesterday you didn't even know the limitations I imposed on myself when I built my main, which you've seen at cosmics. You didn't know it was a thing. You thought theme building was just "not making a gross frankenbuild". How on earth could you possibly blame people for something you didn't even know existed?
Wrong. Again, theme builds aren't just taking "powers that match each other." Never has been, never will be. What you're talking about may be thematic, but it's not the theme building were talking about, and it's not something that only existed or exists due to frankenbuilds (which were around when the game launched, not just starting on 2013, thank you very much). The fact is that there are still people who build characters this way, who have self-imposed limits which may or may not make the characters sub-optimal. This is just a thing that is and has been, not something I'm trying to create or rally for, so I don't get why you oppose it so much.
Wrong. There's always been discussion about theme characters. Since the game launched. And you're misinterpreting what I said. It doesn't have to be a character from outside the game, but it just often is. A lot of people make characters they imagined long before the game, characters they played as in paper and pencil RPGs, and they want them to feel like those characters. If the character never shot a lightning bolt or a rocket in their lives, they're not gonna do it now, regardless of how bad it makes the character.
And this whole "theme team" business is nonsense. Two of my main characters, Biff Smackwell and Kid Knuckles, are theme and they don't "underperform". They were created in this game, for this game. Theme doesn't inherently underperform just because you ticked the Theme checkbox. Offender doesn't perform as well as them and his theme has changed from super strength to power armor to force and probably several other things in between. He's one of my least-themey characters and he gets worse scores on cosmics. So oh my god where does this place me and my dumb characters in this crazy cosmic conundrum?!
Oh there's your problem. You think I'm REdefining, when I'm just telling you how it's been since I got here, something that people were doing long before me (cuz I didn't get into closed beta, wah!) and that people were probably doing in city of heroes long before.
The only thing I've personally proposed is possibly making a distinction between what was originally known as theme building and making a character around a cohesive theme. Because both can be suitable theme characters, but only one of those characters has any sort of self-imposed limits based on what the character would and could do. Everything else is just how it's always been. Can't blame me for that, it was like that when I got here!
Yup, just about anything that's "invisible" is theme-free. That's why taking visible auras off of passive a was such a huge boon to theme builders.
Those two statements are incompatible. You can't tell me how theme builders build and why for the reason you just stated: it's all self-imposed rules and guidelines and anything can be theme and no-one can tell you otherwise. The reason you're frustrated is because you're still trying to do it. Your current position is "Nobody can tell you otherwise, but I'm telling you otherwise" and that is a position that is guaranteed to leave you frustrated in trying to argue it.
Oof, you made a lot of assumptions here and kind of missed the point. My point was that it seems like some people want to build a theme and then keep it in stasis, and that that inflexibility leads to their issue. They can do that if they want sure, I was just pointing out a source of the problems being discussed.
You also seem to think I need an explanation of why people theme build... I'm not sure why, considering I'm someone who does so I'm sure I know the reason already.
If you want to get a point across, it's important to use a good example. Punch Man wasn't a good example, whether he exists or not. If I had brought him up, people would absolutely have said "That's not theme you just built inside a power set" so how could he be a good example for those people to get their point across? Not sure why you went all "oh my god" over that.
"Players". Yes Biff, "people". Kind of a bit vague don't you think? I was trying to narrow it down a bit more than that. The very fact that in this thread not all "players" have this reputation for theme builds in mind proves that it's not "Players" but a smaller group. Perhaps a very small group. Also again you're making a whole lot of assumptions here, many of which have been disproven throughout the course of this thread already.
Well, there are people who have tried to make the blanket statement that theme characters suck. That has happened. Many times in fact. It even happened in this very thread. Also, what am I blaming people for? I didn't realize I was blaming anyone for anything, so I have to wonder where that came from.
I never said that theme is just taking powers that match each other. In fact, I've never said that ever, in this thread or anywhere else. I also never said that theme building only exists because of frankenbuilds. What do you think I'm opposing? Have you convinced yourself that I'm opposed to a certain type of theme building? At this point it seems like you're just making up positions to argue against; positions I don't hold.
I never said there wasn't discussion about theme characters, what I said was that there was no discussion of "well your powers have synergy so you're not theme". This whole idea of "your powers all have synergy so you're not themed" is fairly new because now power sets have way more synergy to operate with, meaning that themed characters with synergy are much more likely to appear.
Also, you took a hard left here telling me that two of your theme characters don't underperform... why do you think I need to know this? I'm one of the first people who comes along and says "theme characters can perform" when someone says they can't.
And here we're back to "Nobody can tell you otherwise, but I'm telling you otherwise". Also you say you're not redefining.. but then you outline your proposal for redefining theme by making a distinction between your own idea of what theme should be and what other people think theme can be. Why do we need this distinction? Considering that characters in both types of theme can perform or not, then what's the use of drawing a line between them? It wouldn't help anyone saying "X theme builds underperform" because it wouldn't make that statement any more true or clear than it is now. As far as I can tell it would essentially be the same as just saying they're all theme builds and leaving it at that.
Now here's where I blow your mind:
All of my characters have self-imposted limits based on what the character would and could do. And in fact, all the people we're talking about who consider their characters theme, no matter which category of theme you want to put them in, also have those self-imposed limits. Some have more, some have less, so what's the use of trying to define a cutoff point that puts them in two separate groups? After all there are people with builds similar to mine, who went just a bit beyond my self-imposed limits who perform much better than I do. Should I try to draw a line between them and myself?
You can deny the "theme team" business, but you're the one trying to say people can't be on yours. I'm the one saying that we're all on the same one.
I just don't see why you want this distinction made. Is it so that people can say "X Theme builders needed the pre-fix Wardicator"? That is where this whole thing started.
Like I've said many times before, you can definite things for yourself however you like, have 30 different categories of theme, I don't give a care there. Just don't try to tell me what category I am, because I'm just theme, and nobody can tell you otherwise.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
When I mentioned the pet build and messing around with it, end game is exactly what I had in mind.
Whilst her actual theme (Technopath and metal manip, super intelligent etc) could be represented MANY different ways in CO, I chose to go for a more supportive route with her relying on the gadgets and robots she creates in order to "fight", whilst also supporting her team / those around her. (I was taken by the Inventor AT when I first had her, since I was Silver before I went gold and then LTS)
I've been building for a while and whilst Commander spec is useful...I think the deeper problem is just pets in general. So I'm actually considering moving her into a DPS role or at least a more directed support role.
Whilst she mechanically works quite well...I know she could be maybe not "better" but more directed in a specific way which allows her to remain in theme but also makes her mechanically different in order to pursue endgame if I wanted.
I've worked for endgame gear with her, got all my pieces etc I just went to Cosmics without pets...which was a bit rough in terms of my actual damage output...but I got through.
Ideally I'd just like to do more than "get through", because that feels horrible when you're used to doing more than just "getting through".
So my personal project is to either wait and see if Gadgeteering is improved along with the pet system...or simply relegate the idea of tech pets to the devices I have (or leaving them as other characters I have) and focus the build on doing something more productive and fun.
Which honestly isn't difficult at all for me, I'm just reluctant to change, but I could easily go: PA or Gadgets DPS, CC/Healer, Greater Pet Master and still be in theme and work very well.
(I always hoped there would be a tech passive which functioned like a mash up of AoED, AoRP & Targeting Computer for self and pets)
It's just that the way in which the end game has been set up to work...it can feel like it alienates some aspects of the game's building ability...a la pets.
Similar thing with Ape, people used to nuke hearts. However this was not seen as a great solution by Devs so it was changed to force the idea that CC was relevant in this encounter, so now, people CC the hearts.
It seems to be the case that this isn't going to change, so I'd kinda be miffed to see that happen with the pet system...since much like the CC system, it really should be re-worked but there's not enough time or resources from what I gather.
At least the current CC system is at least workable for side parts in several endgame situations. Which apparently translates into "CC system is fine
On the other hand, Pets from what I've HEARD, seem to make each scenario problematic or are just a waste of time. Combined with their buggy AI, they just need help. At least CC was given a bandaid lol
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
__________________________
Don't try to assume that I'm emotional about this. I'm not frustrated, I'm just tired of you.
No they're not. Let's establish a few things. Theme builds have a bad reputation. They have this because people who build around a theme impose limits on their characters. Reputation isn't fact. You can have a theme build that is amazing and you can have a non-theme build that sucks. Builds run the gamut.
None of this stuff exists or is defined because of me. It's just something that has been for a long time that you misunderstood and now you're furious about it (isn't accusing someone of being emotional fun?!) because you're wrong.
Theme builders just have a different overall goal. Some people have goals like being able to compete, being good at endgame, getting good gear. Theme builders usually have the goal of having their characters feel like they're the real deal, not just a guy wearing the costume of a guy who he's a fan of.
Right. Anything can be a "theme" which is why this whole conversation is confused. The problem comes from a misunderstanding of what makes a theme character. "I've got all electricity powers!" is not the same as "I only take powers that this character would have in the reality he exists in." Both things can adhere to a "theme" but only one of those things has a bad rep for not being optimized. In truth, the term "theme character" is problematic because people understand it in different ways. The only reason I started posting in here was to shed light on why these types of character have a bad reputation, not because I'm trying to take ownership of or define any sort of concept. It just is what it always was.
Correct. If they want to "keep it in stasis" it can absolutely become an issue. I don't think I've said otherwise so maybe you're confused. Hey look now we're both doing it!
Sure, everybody theme builds. But that doesn't explain why you had a total misconception of what a "theme build" was and why they have a bad rep.
Because hypothetical situations are used to illustrate a point, not prove to exacting decimal point values the quality of specific things. I could have easily said "power A is the best power in the game, obviously better than any other power in any game ever created, but a theme builder wouldn't take it if it didn't look right for his character." The specifics don't matter.
I mean, do you want me to name them all individually? They're not an organized party assembling marches for the rights of theme builders. I don't have a name for them other than "all players who thought theme building was this thing instead of that thing."
When I said "there's no blanket statement" you shoulda kept reading to the part immediately after that said "because it's wrong". I'm not saying nobody ever said that, I'm saying that you can't say that because it's not factual.
Also th blame part was regarding you saying "oh darn to many themes" or whatever.
I may be wrong, and I don't really care to go back and check right now so I might just take your word for it, but I coulda sworn that you linked a video of one of your builds as proof that themes aren't weak because your powers thematically fit together.
I don't think anyone said that having synergy means a lack of theme. I don't think I've ever heard anyone make that statement ever. So quit making things up.
The point of telling you that is to show you that I'm not in any kind of "theme team" that I want to keep exclusive, as you seem to be convincing yourself of. I build characters all sorts of ways. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but I never swore, hand to God, that I'd adhere to making characters one way and to make sure that everyone else stepped in line with that or get branded "not theme team".
I'm not strictly on one side or the other, I'm simply telling you why theme builds have the bad rep. That's all. You thinking that I'm lobbying for some theme camp is completely made up in your head. You'd be doing the same thing as me if you went into a thread where people were saying that calculating the sum of two numbers was called division. You wouldn't be claiming that you're in some kind of addition team, you're just saying "no that's not what that means, it hasn't meant that ever."
No, we're back to you having trouble understanding. No one can tell you what's a proper "theme" because that's like saying opinions as wrong. Like cilantro is gross, that can't be factual. But there's a concept of "theme builds" which I'm pretty sure we've established are foolishly named because it causes confusion, and this concept that theme builds are underpowered because when people build in this particular theme way, they impose limits on themselves to make sure the character "feels" right. Even saying things like all theme builds are bad is wrong though, because there's no single thing that ensures s theme build has to be bad. That's not part of the definition. Again, I'm not establishing rules, this is just the way some people play, and for many many years this was called "theme building" and that's all I'm telling you, in a lot more words than should be necessary.
I'm not because this whole thing existed before I came along. Correcting people is not redefining.
And this was the only actual proposal I made, the only idea that really came out if my head, was simply naming these two things differently SIMPLY BECAUSE IT CAUSES CONFUSION AND IF THERE WERE BETTER NAMES FOR THEM PEOPLE COULD FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL ISSUES. I'm not trying to create something or take ownership of anything, I'm just saying call this guy Bob and this guy Larry. It isn't ground-breaking mountain-moving. Like, why bother making a distinction between dogs and cats? They're both animals, both pets, same thing, lets not discuss it. Right?
See above. Distinctions don't hurt anyone.
You were arguing about what a theme build was before I got into this conversation. You coulda just "left it at that" or kept arguing forever because being stubborn is fun and exciting
Your problem is that you don't take things at face value. I don't have any motives. Fact: just about all my characters used wardicator. Fact: I haven't complained about the wardicator fix. Fact: I don't have negative feelings about the wardicator fix. Fact: I think wardicator was overperforming and fully expected it to be fixed some day and I'm not gonna ever make a drink about it because sometimes I try to act like an adult.
So no, that's not why I "want this distinction made." The only reason I believe there should be a distinction is so that in a thread about an overperforming spec, people should be talking about that overperforming spec and the alternatives to it now that it's been fixed, instead of telling people that they're wrong because X is Y when all along X has really been Z and they just didn't understand that.
No ulterior motives. Boy you shoulda worn a hat cuz I just blew your mind, right? Listen to yourself.
yeah, i know your pain as far as pets go >.< i mean i can mess around in the QWZ with my pet master buuuuuut cosmics wouldn't work naturally buuuut i don't really care about doing cosmic stuff unless a friend is running it then i tag along to halp.
personally i can completely understand why pets aren't that big a priority or even needed for end game stuff still, wishful thinking, hee
and that mash up passive for pets would be awesome, incidently i use both AoRP and AoED (more often the latter) for this build
along with non targetted heals all over the place... and without pets i just have an energy builder really lol, buuuuut this entire setup is okay for the stuff i want to do and knock-on-wood, the pets have been behaving for me so far in all content, tho recently they seem to have gotten extra squishy in alerts, i need to test that part more
if pets ever get overhauled, man, we'll prolly get sick of seeing so many pets then, coz am psure there are many folk who like to be petmasters of some kind or the other lol, so hoping that day isn't too far off
P.S.: i kinda miss the old cosmics (nostalgia mostly and for no real practical reasons)
yeaaah i had initially wanted to ask for an easy-all build viable spec combo but got distracted by theme stuff coz well, themes are fun >.>
so guys need an easy spec combo that lets me have good/decent survival+dakka so i can resume trying to get dmg/kill perks while soloing non end game content on my one chara that was initially using wardicator loop coz i will be moving passives and forms in and out coz am jus trying to get the obnoxiously long list of perks coz apparently am a masochist >.>
i generally use the powerhouse's battlestation with team set to five and hardest opponents then aggro the whole map, if i survive, this works >.> my tanks and petmaster still can buuuut former wardicator one can't, so i wanna be able to have a combo that lets me do that again please >.<
currently am playing her w/ protector and guardian (and strength) specs which gives her great survival but.... no real boom >.< need boom! gimme boom!
We don't need the distinction for that though. In fact, the distinction in no way helps to promote that. If anything the distinction would just create a slightly different version of what happens now. People would say "X theme builds needed this" and the argument will continue there, just with a different phrase instead of "theme builds". If anything the new distinction would only enforce the idea that "being theme" is holding people down because now they have a special new phrase for their special brand of ultra-theme.
You know what would promote the thing you want? Forgetting about defining theme, forgetting about categorizing theme, saying that theme is whatever you want it to be, and no longer attributing anything to theme. Once you stop talking about theme and if you qualify as this or that definition of it, and if performance effects happen because of it, and instead start talking about what your specific build needs completely apart from theme, then the thing you want happens, people talking about the mechanics involved and how to move forward.
Just abandon the distinction thing, it's useless and pointless.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Ultimate Success!
First of all, no. We would respond "Oh, you should have told me your theme first, so I could tailor my advice to that. Now that I know it, I can do so." That's generally how it actually goes at least.
Second, how would this situation be improved with what you're suggesting? It would be just as dumb to say "Oh I see, you are a such-and-such theme builder". No, you just ask for the theme and then give them advice tailored to the theme. Or, even better and more realistically, the person says the theme when they're first asking for the advice so it's clear at the outset what they have in mind - again this is what people normally do.
If someone wants to make Fireball wizard, they would say "I want to make a character whose only attack is Fireball". No further distinction or classification required. Advice might still stray out of what that person is willing to use, and that would be the case even if they classified themselves as a certain type of theme builder, because only they know what they will accept and that information would not be expressed through a classification. Simply put, the distinction doesn't add anything here... except maybe some awkwardness as people wonder why the person is declaring themselves as an "X Theme Builder".
Hybrid, Tank, and DPS roles have absolute differences that are not subjective. They're not debatable distinctions, they're coded into the game. It's different from subjectively classifying people based on why and how they build their theme characters, ya know? You're a bit off the rails with this one.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
So, next I will define what I think it needs in order to be a good example, because otherwise mentioning the concept is a waste of time.
1: it needs to be a proper superhero. All player characters in Champions Online are defined by the game as a superhero worthy of being treated by the Champions as an equal. So for it to be a solid character concept it needs to be someone who actually has the ability to fight supervillains and win.
2: It needs to be an example that can't get better than 50% on the percentage accuracy scale I posted earlier. IE if it's a concept that CAN be built in CO then it's not proof that it's possible to have a superhero theme that requires a sub-optimal build.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
He actually has but in honesty a lot of people have still got pre-defined notions in their heads so it won't be interpreted fully.
1.) No not really.
2.) Well, see, no one said it's required. Again, lost in translation. For the Builder of said theme it might be. I mean, are you honestly going to tell someone they can't build the way they want to for a certain theme they fabricated because it might be sub-optimal. (The one-attack/fireball person biff mentioned earlier comes to mind), and barring that, because the obvious answer is no, you wouldn't be able to KNOW if anyone is building a sub-optimal theme build because, through common sense, you don't know every single player in the game/how they're building to a specific theme
42 40s, LTSer.
Another example was a toon I tried to build themed entirely around his pistols. Turned out he ran out of powers to use pretty doggone quick.
For that matter, I'm really not sure where to go in the development of Spider-Bat any more. Strength, agility, some gadgets, check; martial arts, check; but gadgets and martial arts don't work together as well as you might have imagined. He is what he is, and I have to deal with that if I want to play the character I envisioned, but he's not exactly "optimized", ya know?
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Well I guess nobody was really willing to put up much of a fight for the idea that anyone actually needed the old wardicator, or that the nerf was a big deal. I guess the matter is settled then. Good thread!
Now let's all of us theme builders get back to buildin' themes o3o together, as one. Group hug?
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
...while waiting on someone to drop some knowledge on me for the following:
Thread for the most part has been about constructive discussion on Wardicator changes. Granted it did a segway into the subject of theme-building, but eh, it's hardly anything to overreact about and say "You've turned my threadz into -insert irrelevant hyperbole-!".
Nope. There's an obvious and noticeable difference between how people have been "theme building" since the beginning of the game and "picking powers that make sense together, aesthetically or mechanically." The fact that I can so easily distinguish the two is proof enough that there's a difference. You're just too stubborn to admit it.
I don't know, I think the extreme example serves a very legitimate purpose of describing the nature of the situation. First off I called it out right there that it was an extreme example, so obviously in all but big red letters I said "this isn't something that normally happens but lets use our imaginations." Does a real-world example really help?
If it's necessary, fine, I provided plenty of other real-world examples. Anyway.
1. You know, the way people define "superhero" on this forum when they're asking for non-superhero costumes often comes down to "any being that can do something above and beyond what a normal human can do." Trust me I've had this conversation with many people, and that's what it boils down to for them. But I'll play along because I don't agree with that assessment. I just like that this bar changes to fit people's current needs, but I don't think I've ever seen you say that. Anyway, I'm not sure how this helps to define if a character is a concept character. First off a lot of people's concepts are "villains" and second, a lot of them are "non-super-powered vigilantes" that wouldn't be recognized as equals by the Champions. Even if we did meet all those conditions, I don't think "proper superhero" has anything to do with whether a build is a theme build or not. So I'll disagree here. Remember, we're talking about what motivates a player to choose the powers the way they do.
2. "proof that it's possible to have a superhero theme that requires a sub-optimal build." I never said anything like this. I never said that a theme has a requirement to be poorly performing. Themes can be just about anything. A theme build can be a good performer, it can be a terrible performer, a normal build can also be a good performer or a bad performer. Again all I'm talking about is the motivations a player has for choosing powers. Where those powers end up is far beyond the point.
Like, imagine you're dead set on making Spider-Man. Which powers would you choose? Would you choose Force Cascade because it does big damage and you just say it's a big ball of high-velocity webbing? Some people will say "sure, let's do that! The power is great and flashy and effective." Others will say "nope, it just doesn't look like a web ball." Both ways of choosing this power are "correct" but one way might lead to a better- or worse-performing character. Same thing with Swinging. The effect is correct, but if you're dead-set on replicating the theme to a T, you won't take it because of the grappling gun. Or you can say it's Spider-Man trying things out without his Web Shooters.
So, I don't know if you thought I was using Fireball Man as an example of how bad a theme build has to be. It seems this might be what you're getting out of it. My point is that if a person is creating the character, regardless of if it's bad or the best character ever, they're only going to pick that one power because that's the character they're trying to make. They're trying to make a guy that knows one spell. If you end up making a guy that knows 14 spells, then you didn't actually make the one-spell guy, right?
I'd love to help you out honestly, but I haven't even respecced any of my characters yet. My characters just about all use wardicator, but I just left them like they are.
This x100.
An example of theme building: Back in the day I made a character whose powers were meant to emulate the 10 plagues of Egypt. The power choices reflected that theme, regardless of the cohesion of the build (though I did try to make it work as well as possible with that constraint in mind, ie I had an aura, an AoE, single target, etc.) I took Locust Breath because it was a locust power first, AoE second and with no other reason needed. Other power choices were similarly theme-first, utility second.
An example that is not theme building: A character who is supposed to have super strength picking the most synergistic, powerful Might abilities or essentially building an AT.
An example of something in between: Mixing and matching wind and lightning powers on a storm-powered hero, prioritizing powers that work well together over flashy ones.
yeah, but i got restless with my one wardicator >.< hoping the other build guru's can point at better alternatives that are more rounded off rather than specialized towards tank/dps
psure it was hinted earlier in the thread that there were better alternatives but dunno if that was meant for rounded off or specialized... and am NOT scrolling through all that again... yet >.<
my brain still views them both as themes just... former is strict theme and the latter is a loose theme...
...there's a joke in there somewhere and i better get points for it by the time i figure it out
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
I could make a very bad sick joke about that...
Eh, if someone chooses all electric powers because their theme is "girl who can manipulate electricity"... is that a loose theme or a strict them tho? They adhered to the theme pretty strictly, ya know?
See again, you don't even understand what I'm saying. I acknowledge that there are different kinds of theme builders, but I recognize it as being subjective and not as distinct as say the character roles are. There is no absolute cut-off line between types, and many of them will cross the barrier you're trying to say is absolute.
If I showed you a character who uses all electric powers and is pretty strong, you would say "nope, not theme builder". But then I mention to you that the person has been making comic books about this character for years. So what, now they're not a theme builder because their theme happens to use powers that make sense together aesthetically and mechanically? No, they sit in both of your categories. Many theme builders do, because not all theme builders strictly don't care about performance at all, some care a bit more, some more still, and some care a lot. Caring about performance or incidentally having good performance does not disqualify someone from being a theme. It's just plain ridiculous that you want to pretend there's some arbitrary cutoff point where suddenly they're not a theme builder just because their powers happen to work too well together by design.
You yourself have characters that fit into this. You yourself have characters that if I had made them and showed them to you, you would say "nope, not theme builder character". You're just too stubborn to see all of these things that make your "distinction" not as black and white as you want them to be for the purposes of this argument.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
point, but the theme itself seems loose/strict based on how the player envisions it
which brings me back to my group 1 and 2 distinction because i think that (obv self bias) it covers both groups fairly well enough
group 1: theme + head cannon appeal
group 2: theme + head cannon appeal + mechanics/synergy appeal
and the distinction is needed because we have in a broad sense these two groups of players kinda biting at each other over the word "theme" itself, when that itself isn't the issue, the issue always seems to be more along the lines of "can a theme be optimized"
some in 2 feel theme should not be an "excuse" for poor optimization, and that is rather unfair, because only a select few in group 1 would claim theme = poor performance guaranteed (so far, none here have done so as far as i see) however,
@jonsills gives a great example of a group 1 build that just can't be very well optimized nor is he using it as an excuse
btw i do appreciate this (hijacked) thread because we need to all come to some sort of agreement over what the actual issue is, i feel it is not theme alone, theme is a part of it
also both you and @biffsmackwell come up with great examples to prove your points and you both are kinda right but i wish you'd realize that (at least from my perspective) aside from sorta talking past each other, you are all focusing on theme+theme itself too much rather than theme+...something, dunno if it should be mechanics or what, am not good at asplainin'
what am trying to say is that the word "theme" is fairly understood by all equally well enough, the issue arises when ppl say "theme build" because now it can mean it is either a) mechanically viable or b) mechanically non viable
group 2 might jump on that and go all themes can be made viable, if so i present to you lot again that facebeamdude exmple above
group 1 might jump on that and go all themes have to deal with a handicap and have to give up stuff in exchange, if so there are plenty of group 2 build examples in the powers thread
when these two above jumps happen is when it becomes this whole circular mess >.<
guys i love this debate buuuuuuuuut can we pleaaaaase be a lil less snarky coz i think the sorting of this ... entire thing can only be healthy for the community... till it's not and then whatever >.> i get dibs on delivering the first chairshot+piledriver+legdrop combo
Going by this chart we have about 11 different types of theme builders. So now we just have to find names for all of them and figure out who goes where. I mean hey if we're going to make distinctions we should at least be accurate and account for everything involved right? 2 just isn't enough.
Well it's plenty fair considering that when we say that, we always say it directly to the people making that claim. After all, if nobody is making this claim then how would the argument start to begin with? Nobody just randomly goes into a thread and says "Oh and by the way everyone remember that theme builds can still be strong!". No, someone says "I needed this broken mechanic because of my theme build" and that's how it starts. Every. Single. Time. Because I hate when people spread this garbage about theme builds being weak and I will argue against it every single time I see it.
And yes, someone in this thread did make that claim.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Maybe this is why it's so hard for me to find builds I like.
Although technically, "care about top score" should have a portion outside the "theme builders" if it's going to properly represent people.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
That's true, I should have made it more of an oval that reaches the gray area.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
i stand corrected >.< but yeah if someone demands performance but refuses to understand/realize the reality of having to compromise their theme even a tiny bit... yeah they deserve all the ridicule they can get >.>
also i sit firmly between the looks and playstyle and at times... i lean towards mechanics for group content / tagging with friends etc. but not much, juuuuuuust enough to get by and not sabotage the stuff is all
You know, I kinda spoke too soon because I realized that I haven't really been playing cosmics for a long while so I don't exactly know how much my characters are affected. Basically only done Red Winter since. Oops. :P
No, you.
See, this is wrong. You either build your character adhering to strict guidelines, or you don't. Sure you could go halfway and build a character around a specific theme and just "bend" on some powers like Spider-Man using Swinging. It's still Spider-Man themed but the aesthetics are a bit off.
See, it's obviously you that doesn't understand. Why would I say that? It's not until you tell me that the character is built as a theme, a certain concept, that I'd ever even start to know if it was a theme character or not. It's not something you can just look at a list of powers and determine that. Heck, a theme build and a purely-optimized build could be the exact same thing. It's only a theme build if that was the intent of the player.
See, where have I even said anything like this? Okay, here's how people approach "theme building." "I have this character in my head that I wanna make in Champions. I'm not gonna take any abilities that the character in my head doesn't have. So I pick this, this this and that. Cool, I have my build themed around this character, and when I play him, I feel like I'm playing this character, not just a pile of stats." The other way: "I'm gonna make a character. Hmm, what should I make? I already played a gun character to 40, I think maybe I'll try fire this time around. So I'll take this fire power, that fire power, and even though rocket launcher does fire damage, I'm not gonna take that because the character uses superpowers to make fire, not gizmos. Cool, now I have a character whose powers are thematic and fit a cool superhero aesthetic." (Of course I'm not going to talk about all the different ways to make characters, this is just touching on two types of "theme" building and why they are distinct.)
You see the difference? That's the reason that I think a different word should be used for one and the other because by definition they both are adhering to a "theme", but people have been talking about theme characters referring to characters created around the first example. Now, this has nothing to do with me; people have been defining theme characters like this for almost 10 years. I didn't come up with the term, I just use it the way everyone else has.
Correct. I've been saying over and over again that performance isn't directly tied to whether a build is theme or not. In fact I've said various times that you can have bad theme builds, good theme builds, bad regular builds, and good regular builds. No mutual exclusivity here. The fact is though, that theme builds have a bad reputation for being bad, because the people who build them restrict which powers their characters can use. Again, not about me, I didn't spread this around, it's just been there for years and years and years.
The ridiculous part is that you think this is the case. Seriously go back and read my posts here. I say they have a bad rep (which they do; just read all the comments about it before I even stepped in here), I didn't say that the rep was completely true, ever. Builds all run the gamut, regardless of being any kind of theme or just a collection of powers.
Yeah no. You're arguing from a place of complete misunderstanding.
Yes, it's true, I have characters that are theme, some of them builds are good, some of them bad, I have characters that are not theme, some of them good, some of them bad. Some of them stick to theme pretty closely, some of them bend a little bit, others I don't even care.
Hopefully explanation 4.7 will finally drive the point home and you'll get what I'm saying.
I kinda disagree with this but only because I think it's worded a little off. Theme builders do have to deal with a handicap that is self-imposed restrictions, but that handicap does not ever ensure or require the build to be sub-optimal.
And see, I'm not even trying to defend this. I'm 100% fine with the wardicator fix, whether it cripples my characters or not. I have huge doubts that it'll completely destroy my builds (I was just taking it because it was more stats. Who doesn't want more stats?), so I'm like whatever. Should the game change to cater specifically to theme builders? Yes and no. The game should allow theme builders to participate (it does) but broken mechanics, especially ones that are causing instabilities, should absolutely be fixed and not used as a crutch. I mean, if something is too good, and everyone is using it, recognize that it's too good and expect it to be changed in the future. Rule of thumb.
Hey look, now you know what melee players feel like at cosmics!
yup that is what i meant, that they do, but to only the extent the player's own rules, and i'm psure there are enough build guru's who can provide an alternative to that restriction but yes, to an extent and not always >.>
i ended up changing mine after she stopped passing that stress-test in the battlestation, she can now survive, since am used to tank style but no way to make up for the loss in boom quantity without power dependence, o well; trying to use specs for tanky stuff and passive/form for dpsy kinda is working atm
Yeah, I know you're not trying to defend it. You've said as much several times. Now point out on my chart which color of theme builder you are o3o I'm a dark green
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.