Fresno, CA
Last Active
  • Why I quit WoW - "The Consequences of Reducing the Skill Gap"

    I thought the hallmark of a good pvp system was that a new player could come in and beat a player that had been in the game for a while. Level playing field and all that.

    Now, it's a bad thing?

    What you call randomness, I suspect, other players may call skill.
    Viper482KyleranalivenOctagon7711StoneRosesPsYcHoGBRGorweMyrdynnJean-Luc_PicardYashaXand 7 others.
  • Have you or would you ever play an X-Rated MMO?

    Wait, these exist and I haven't been playing them?
  • Intel Coffee Lake 6-core (Out Now)

    I'm always astounded at how many people say they stream frequently, or list it as a priority.

    I've never done it, I have no ambition to do it, (I don't have the bandwidth to do it), and I don't really care to watch other people play games when I could be playing them myself. I think I'm too old to "get it".
  • anyone want to help me make an mmo?

    Rhode Island likes to invest in developers with a dream.
  • City of Heroes

    A couple of things that made CoH stand out to me:

    The Mentor/Sidekick system. It just worked. You could be any level, and group with any other level, and it did a decent job of making sure it still worked out ok. It wasn't as robust as a truly dynamic system like One Tameril has, but it also came out a decade before that.

    The customization was fun, it got down to the level that you could customize the shaders and color of the particle effects that your powers had. The power sets were varied, and didn't necessarily vie for parity - they were just built for fun. There were definitely FoTM builds, but the meta in the game didn't revolve around spreadsheets and optimal DPS rotations - it was just about what you liked - you could make anything work.

    It had an in-game mission builder, and you could run player-created missions that were creative and fun. Neverwinter has something similar now, but CoH had it first.

    Open-world missions and events that were common. Rift and GW2 take a lot of pride in their public quests, but CoH was the precursor and did a good job of them.

    The lore and story - the world had a rich story, and the quests/story line lead you through it and made you a part of it. And the "sequel" - CoVillains, integrated into the same world, and you could have Villain characters that came at the same world, interacted with Hero characters, and it was awesome. It wasn't just adding "another faction" and enabling some PvP options.

    The game had instancing early on (and was one of the first to do so), but honestly, the instancing was one of the weaker points of CoH - it got repetitive early on, and was nowhere near as interesting as the open world events. They were the necessary evil in CoH.

    Champions Online, DCUO, and Marvel Online are all super-hero genres, and CO is closest in spirit, but none of them are entirely CoH replacements.

    A lot of games have a lot of the good things CoH had, but I haven't come across anything that hits all those points in the same way. I think it's going to remain one of those special games that can't be replaced (like SWG), and if you missed it, I'm sorry, but there isn't anything else quite like CoH was. 

    First of all, using Chrome on Win10, but appears issue is also on Chrome OS X.

    Two issues related to Agree/Awesome/etc buttons on a post

    The first deals with posts that I have made. I can see if someone has clicked something, and it appears there's a little icon that's supposed to indicate what they clicked, but I'm old with tired eyes and I can't differentiate between them. Before it would just pop up the button with a click count, and if I rolled over the button, it showed me who clicked it. Now I can't see the buttons at all (I do realize the buttons only appear on rollover now, they don't show up at all for posts I have made), and I just get a few of these icons.

    Second, those icons. For posts from other people, when they don't have a signature or there is no Edit flag (like in the above picture) -- the icons overlap the text of the thread.

  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    Quizzical said:

    I'm more open to regulations to ensure a properly competitive market than to regulations that try to grant someone (whether a government or a private corporation) an artificial monopoly and then try to get them to behave.  Cellular already has a suitably competitive market in most of the United States, though some places could really use more competition in wired ISPs.  I'm glad that I had the opportunity to switch from Comcast to Verizon where I live--and the threat of switching helps to keep both ISPs in line.
    I agree with all of that, but see, most people don't have the luxury of choice. In the major city I'm near, it's Comcast up to 100MB or ... I guess there's AT&T DSL at 1/10th the speed, or radio wireless for 1/30th the speed, or LTE cellular for 1/2 the speed and data caps.

    Comcast lobbies very hard to keep it that way, and makes it extremely difficult for another company to get permitting and use rights to install a competing infrastructure. The radio ISP isn't even independant, they use Comcast backbone and pay a good bit to do so - and it's reflected in the pricing. You pay more for a 3MB radio link than you would 100MB cable, but Comcast isn't willing to run cable everywhere - hence radio has a market, even at that price.

    It's kinda like saying  you always have the option of walking, but when your destination is 50 miles away, is isn't an appealing option.

  • SC makes PC Gamers worst micro transactions list


    People are free to spend their hard earned cash however they please. It's not for me to comment on what someone else pays for.

    I'm entitled to an opinion, certainly, but there's no point in airing that out in public, as it won't change anyone's mind one way or the other.

    If it makes them happy, and it's not immoral or illegal (which I don't think SC is either at the present), then whatever floats your boat. I'm free to chose to spend the same as well, or not, as I wish.
  • Were done.

    Dauzqul said:
    MMOs aren't that expensive to make. With engines such as Unity / Unreal Engine and their Marketplaces, you can build a full-blown MMO for less than $1,000. It will, however, require a TON of time.

    You are assuming that time is free. Which it is probably the most expensive part of making any game.

    A safe assumption I've heard thrown around: assume about $10,000/mo per employee. Which breaks down to about $62/hr. Even if your doing it yourself - you gotta pay rent, eat, pay utilities, buy that computer, etc. Even if your donating your time for free, that's cutting out of time that you need in order to work a job that can afford all of that...

    Multiply that by "a TON of time", and it starts to add up pretty fast.

    Unless you just want a game with random (albeit good looking) assets that don't really do anything - but then you could just play Goat Simulator and get more or less the same experience.
  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    Torval said:
    Horusra said:
    Horusra said:
    Net Neutrality does everything to stifle new competition because the new companies can not offer what Net Neutrality requires them to offer cause it costs too much upfront.
    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh quite false so stop spewing nonsense. All Net Neutrality requires is treating all data of a single kind the same way. This does not cost "too much up front" nor does Title II regulations. You are literally buying into shit the ISPs are saying hook line and sinker and you don't seem to grasp that the reason it is expensive has nothing to do with regulation from the federal government under title II or title I and everything to do with local permits, costs to run fiber, equipment costs etc and that's a lot of what it is. Title II won't help bring down costs, title I won't help bring down costs, a full repeal won't help bring down costs, nor will deregulation at the federal level bring down costs. 

    You are in this mindset that treating video packets all the same, treating game packets all the same, treating website packets all the same and applying proper QoS is somehow costing an ISP more. They've been doing this shit forever and it's basically more costly to not follow along with "doing nothing" as you need to start developing systems to prioritize specific traffic from a specific source a certain way or not and that would actually drive up costs. There isn't "increased costs" with net neutrality or title II at all actually Title II isn't costing isps more, it isn't lowering investments, and it isn't making it harder for new isps like fixed wireless Wisps to enter the market despite what some of the larger isps and consortium of isps/industry shills will say about it. 

    These regulations hurt absolutely no one other than squashing a new way isps wanted to make money off webservices that they themselves are not hosting. 

    Like your propaganda you are spewing is truth.  For a new company they have to be able to keep up the speeds to everyone.  Take your crap and peddle it to the noob masses.
    Do you have proof of your claim that it stifles new competition? Because I have gigabit fiber to the house (no last mile copper) from our local county ISP, Douglas Fastnet (DFN).

    Under net neutrality that flourished. Our previous options were CenturyLink DSL capped at 10Mbps bundled with a phone package (required) for about $120/mo. Satellite, or Verizon hotspot (expensive with low data caps). Gigabit fiber is $90/mo, but they offer other packages and services including DSL and wireless internet starting at $40. In my locale, that is a good price.

    Net neutrality hasn't stifled that growth. In that ecosystem I had good internet, finally at a reasonable price. Now we're rocking the boat to throw yet another bone to the big telecoms. The internet is an essential service in a modern society. We should be making small thoughtful changes to a flawed system not ripping it all out with no replacement because some baboons want to reform systems in their interest. It works now and it's not broken.
    It really depends on local municipalities. 

    In a lot of places, cable/telecom companies have a good deal of influence that prevents anyone from touching their lines.

    Things like One Touch Make Ready (OTMR) don't exist everywhere - if a third party wants to run fiber, they have to get municipal permits to go underground in areas/overhead in others. If there is ~any~ other line in the area (and good odds on there being a telecom/cable line in the vicinity, if not already in the exact same place), you have to get them to "Make Ready Work", and they can charge as much and take as long as they want, really. It pretty much kills anyone that wants to install a network that could possibly compete with any pre-existing service.

    OTMR means that utility/cable/telecom has to allow for a single third party to be able to do the work. They do get some say on the approved vendor list, but once approved, those vendors are allowed to make all adjustments on poles and underground. And since it's a single set of vendors that are doing the work for everyone, the price and timing is more or less the same for anyone looking to do linework.

    So, yeah, it's "possible" that competition can exist in areas. And even in places where OTMR doesn't exist, there's nothing that explicitly states that competition can't exist. But the reality is a bit different.

    Cable/Telecom lobbies very hard to prevent laws like OTMR from passing in local municipalities, because it helps to prevent competition, and does so very effectively, without seeming like they are being anti-competitive. They can always claim safety or liability and make it sound good to a local Assembly-person (even though several places have done so with no significant issue). And by kjeeping it close to home - at the city/county level, it never really hits the news cycles or comes up to the level of national attention. It's all done by those local elected officials, the ones that everyone just votes for on the basis of who's got the best signs out in everyone's yard, or straight ticket voting, rather than actually taking the time to listen to any of their stances or evaluate how they have performed in the past.