|
And I mean, just look at the list of heroes on the Battleborn website and ask the million dollar question: "Of who?"
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Some internet detectives even figured out it was obviously someone at Gearbox who made that subreddit. That's even sadder!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Some internet detectives even figured out it was obviously someone at Gearbox who made that subreddit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:What's everyone else's preferred approach to players rolling vs. GMs rolling, and keeping rolls hidden vs. rolling in the open? My approach is that task-based resolution is bullshit in inverse proportion to the rigidity of the framework you're trying to fit the task into. For a task-based resolution like a single Perception check, you should introduce a significant cost for searching for secret doors, such as a sizable advancement in the progression of time that could bring about wandering monsters or foil the goal of the adventure, or a cost to pay for finding a secret door, such as triggering a trap or alerting an enemy, that is bypassed on success. Assuming you still want to work within the d20 system, which has become increasingly tailored toward the fairly fast binary pass-or-fail task resolution of the combat round, the question of hit-or-miss-and-what-do. Otherwise you'll wind up with problems at opposite ends of the spectrum. When there are no costs to just rolling Perception checks over and over, people try to invent artificial reasons for players not to do the same costless things over and over until they succeed, like hiding rolls so success is uncertain or pretending you only get one shot, like there were enemies you can only ever make one attack roll against. (Well, there are, but Perfectly Defensive Samurai doesn't exist in this system.) When the binary pass-or-fail task rolls are treated as though in full they had story consequences, when the entire party has to sneak or the entire party has to lie, you get the opposite problem, since there's very little in the way of story weapons or story armor, no story hit points and not much story healing. Would you throw the party into combat against anything if they only had one collective hit point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Meanwhile the Overwatch devs had to be like "please make less porn". That worked out so well when Ken Levine did it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
345 subscribers, that's more than the peak simultaneous Battleborn players.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Helical Nightmares posted:I want to hear more about this "domain management" system Crawford came up with. I've only given Stars Without Number a cursory read, but it seems very similar: Domains have Wealth, Military and Social scores. Locations a Domain controls increase these stats: for an example, having access to a gold mine would give you +2 Wealth, while a Town within your Domain will give you +2 Wealth and Social in addition to modifiers unique to each Town (like, a town with a proud military tradition might give +2 Military and so on). You also have Ruins, which also give a stat bonus to a Domain that controls them (for an example, a Ruin which used to be the seat of the king who ruled all these lands might give you +2 Social, because being able to control it is a pretty convincing way to add legitimacy to your rule). Before Domains can tap Resources or Ruins they have to resolve whatever issues they might have: the assumption is that Domains have already resolved whatever issue there is with a given location that lies within their borders at the beginning of the campaign, but should they wish to expand their borders into other locations they must first resolve whatever issue there is at that location. Each issue also has a set of tags that determine what stat is used to resolve that issue, and some types of issues even require special units to resolve. For an example, a tribe of goblinods squatting in a mine would have to be resolved with a Military test, and so on. It's also openly stated that not every issue on the campaign map needs to be resolved through Domain play: with the assumption being that players start as low level characters beneath the notice of Domains, it's entirely possible that the players resolve these issues through simple play. If the PCs go into the aforementioned mine and drive off the goblins its issue would now be resolved and whichever Domain happens to have it within their borders would now be able to make use of it. Apparently the idea is that the GM use the Domain system to add organic background events to the campaign world which the players can react to, meaning that even before the PCs get to name level they already know at least something about what's going on in the world politically speaking. It also ties PCs into the Domain Management and Mass Combat systems: once characters reach a certain level they start gaining Champion abilities on top of their normal class-based abilities, which actually make the PCs assets to whichever Domain they are loyal to. A Dwarf PC might give the Domain they are loyal to the Dwarf Friend asset, which allows for the recruitment of dwarven units, while a Cleric PC, simply by virtue of existing, will attract a bunch of pilgrims into the Domain they are loyal to and have them build a Shrine. It's cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Meanwhile the Overwatch devs had to be like "please make less porn". Cowards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Meanwhile the Overwatch devs had to be like "please make less porn". Making the Overwatch characters the way they are, then asking the audience to please not make (as much?) porn of it seems ... counterproductive
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
Well, specifically, they objected to the in-game models being used to make porn, generally through Source Filmmaker. In general porn was okay, but they objected to having their assets used for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 10:19
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Well, specifically, they objected to the in-game models being used to make porn, generally through Source Filmmaker. In general porn was okay, but they objected to having their assets used for it. It's still dumb since that was always going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
I think Blizz has to challenge the use of their assets, because otherwise they risk forfeiting them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Making the Overwatch characters the way they are, then asking the audience to please not make (as much?) porn of it seems ... counterproductive What?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
There's an argument to be made that having a wide roster of characters with clear archetypes but relatively shallow personalities and backstories lets people inject their own personal idea and theories and make fan media to their tastes without being "wrong", and as a result the casts are ironically much more appealing than you'd get from a more niche or lore-heavy characters. I mean I'm not sure this inherently leads to porn or that discouraging it is counterproductive  but it's not entirely a unknown phenomenon either, and you see a similar strategy with the big sprawling rosters in LoL and other MOBAs and such.To be vaguely on topic, a similar phenomenon is probably why stuff like WoD splats or the like in RPGs tend to be pretty well received even today, if they're maybe not the best for the game in the long run. Giving a rough hook to latch onto and wrap ideas around can sometimes be easier than trying to think up a character from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:What?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Much like the characters in recent Fire Emblem games all of the Overwatch characters are very obviously pandering to fetishes. the hell kinda fire emblem games have you been playing
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Much like the characters in recent Fire Emblem games all of the Overwatch characters are very obviously pandering to fetishes. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:the hell kinda fire emblem games have you been playing
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Awakening and Fates? Have you not noticed that every character is some turbo focused anime waifu/husbando archetype? yes i've noticed that but anime archetype is not the same thing as a fetish
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
At long last, hyperintelligent gorilla fetishists have achieved the mainstream recognition they deserve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
I just can't get it up unless my partner is a stock character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
Generic gruff white military soldier-man who's too old for this poo poo: totally a fetish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:yes i've noticed that but anime archetype is not the same thing as a fetish
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
2016 marked the beginning of Blizzard's complete global takeover of all video games when years of painstaking research and focus testing revealed that overwhelming numbers of gamers turned out to have a fetish for attractive ladies with butts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
"Buff dude who only ever wears half a shirt: Fetish." ...Actually I guess "Eats a whole cake in front of an orphan and doesn't share" is probably someone's weirdly specific fetish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
Fine you're right fetish was a poor choice of words. Blatant sex object is more fitting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
I wasn't gonna play overwatch until I discovered they had pandered to my two strongest fetishes: swedish cyberdads and cowboys
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Fine you're right fetish was a poor choice of words. Blatant sex object is more fitting. Compared to the, lemme do some quick math here, four quadrillion video games out there that actually feature blatantly pandering sexualized (almost entirely female) characters Overwatch doesn't even enter the top zillion. Given what I've seen of World of Warcraft's lady armors I'd say Overwatch may be one of Blizzard's less pandering games, the exception being Widowmaker aka Chris Metzen's corruption fetish given form. unseenlibrarian posted:"Buff dude who only ever wears half a shirt: Fetish." Hanzo is designed to appeal to people with a fetish for never going anywhere near the payload.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
lovely Chinese knockoffs are my fetish. That's why I play Paladins instead of Overwatch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
Other videos sure have more embarrassing and juvenile objectification, but Overwatch is head and shoulders above in terms of focus tested devices for preying on loneliness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Truly the robot who transforms into a phallus on wheels was designed just for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Marketers found that people in your demo found WALL E to be really emotionally moving so they made their own version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
I'm shocked and apalled that a poster named Terrible Opinions is posting stuff like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
I don't actually think your opinions are terrible. I just wanted to fit in. I'll get back to dumb and bad seriousposting now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
Y'all seem totally convinced that videogame designers don't make their characters as wide-reachingly appealing as possible by any means necessary when they totally do. If you think that they didn't do a design pass on Overwatch characters to make them more cosplayable and, yes, make them sexually appealing then I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
Pretty sure what everyone was ridiculing wasn't "These characters are designed to be attractive", but more "These characters are designed to be appeal to specific fetishes". Those aren't the same thing!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Generic gruff white military soldier-man who's too old for this poo poo: totally a fetish. Please don't kink shame
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:Pretty sure what everyone was ridiculing wasn't "These characters are designed to be attractive", but more "These characters are designed to be appeal to specific fetishes". Those aren't the same thing! Sorry but literally everything is a fetish these days
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Ettin posted:Please don't colonel klink shame
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
overwatch worked because there's already a core base of people who were drawing porn of the TF2 characters for some reason, and then TF2 but with buttladies came out so yeah
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 13:35
|
|
