_Story_

[ QUOTE ]
Positron: any word on whether or not there'll be "generic" ancillary powers for villains?

[ QUOTE ]
And it's not because they want it that way - it because they didn't take it into account when designing the content.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it was taken into account... what I want to know is why they decided to go the "permanent" route.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be that they are trying to tie more of the story into the game itself. I notice a lot of players will completely ingore the world of CoX and roleplay their characters as if Statesman/Lord Recluse didn't even exist. I think this might be a something that is supposed to bring players deeper into the world that this game exists in, rather than just skimming across the surface.

I had suggested to the developers, via a PM to CuppaJo, that the developers have Epic Power Pools AND Patron Power Pools for both heroes and villains. I suggested that they keep the Patron Powers as is, but make the Epic Powers lesser than the Patron Powers but greater than the standard Power Pool powers.

So this would bring Epics to the villains, and give the heroes Patron Powers from Statesman and company (unless Statesman doesn't give the option, as Lord Recluse isn't currently included in the list of available patrons).

Go and develop a game or two yourself, and then come and tell me that it's as easy as you make it sound.

*sigh*

I still have a few large bills to pay, and then once those are out of the way I can save up for one or two of these. Now the question is, which of my 55+ characters do I want to choose?

I believe the intention was to balance the game for the possibility of defeat with some regularity, not the absolute certainty of it. There is a difference. I think this point has been missed by several of the posters here, while in addition there are several that are intentionally ignoring it to try and help prove their point.

Basically what it means is that on a mission on heroic difficulty that you can be defeated, not that you will be defeated. On invincibile difficulty the chances become even higher. Even if you are dying constantly, it is still possible to progress through the game. There are also those who play on heroic and very rarely face defeat and rather than turn the difficulty up they would rather play ahead of the curve.

I think that those who are complaining that the game is too hard are hoping to be given a setting where the game is basically a cakewalk, one long and easy tutorial if you will. Never facing defeat, never facing a challenge. Personally I would become rather bored with this kind of interactive screensaver. I think many others would find this boring as well.

The developers seem to think that having a game that is too easy causes the players to get bored and quit playing. The number of old subscribers that have returned to the game now that it has become somewhat more challenging might be some proof of this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've italicized some text here to further highlight something I think a few people have missed. Not a certain chance for a defeat every mission, but the possiblity for a defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also says a group of all sizes. That means a team of 8 on Heroic should still face the likelihood of a defeat. That means a WIPE. If one or two people die in the process, that's not a defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. There has to be the chance for defeat in variety of situations. Not a guarantee, but a chance. From heroic to invincible, from solo to full teams, for every archetype the potential should be there. I think the game is beginning to lean closer to this ideal.

[ QUOTE ]
This is Statesman's comments from an "Ask Stateman" (emphasis added)

[ QUOTE ]
Q: Why did defense need to be scaled back so drastically?

A: Here was my goal. Have every type of build able to play on Heroic with perhaps one defeat on groups of all sizes, and do the same on Invincible with at most a handful of defeats. Also, Tankers needed to tank, and Scrappers needed to survive long enough to contribute. We tested and arrived at our numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a defeat ratio to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've italicized some text here to further highlight something I think a few people have missed. Not a certain chance for a defeat every mission, but the possiblity for a defeat.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cuppa's been trying, but she has yet to be able to convince the devs to throw us a bone.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF we were to ever add a way to get Isolator post-Tutorial, it would most likely be incredibly hard to get. Annoyingly hard. Irritatingly hard. There-would-be-a-zillion-people-asking-to-make-it-easier hard.

But IF we were to add it, it would be available nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was also thinking the same thing with the gladiator that is going to be available for those who have (or I should say will have) both Celebrant badges. I hate missing out on content, but it isn't fair if anyone just gets something. It should be a nice little gift for those who were there to get the badge the easy way, but an incredibly gruelling ordeal for everyone else to get it. I missed the first Celebrant badge because I didn't have a computer that clould play 3d when the game hit beta and was first released. I'd hate to think that because of this little bit of bad luck I've been excluded from some content in the game. However having the option to still get it, even if it meant a months worth of hunting something down, it would be worth it in the end. Unfortunately for me it is in the hands of you the developers and the choice is ultimately yours.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any hero that has the one year anniversary badge and logs in during the next anniversary event will receive a special gladiator badge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so there's only a reward if you were around last year? Or will newer characters at least get a badge similar to Celebrant for the 2nd anniversary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, newer characters will get an Anniversary badge.

The gladiator is for having BOTH Anniversary badges.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I miss it because I didn't have a 3d capable computer until July of last year. *sigh* I really wanted to be in this game since the beta, but money didn't allow for it. Such a shame.

[ QUOTE ]
Since this is an "Ask the developer" forum, I'd like to ask what is going on with stealth. I take this power on nearly every character so I don't outlevel content anymore, so I can see all there is to see, as well as not to die trying to get to some missions that are in dangerous zones (it gets old really quickly). I've heard talk of some kind of suppression for this power...is there truth to this? To make up for a suppression, will there be a "stealth enhancement" for stealth, invis, grant invis, and phase shift so that we can increase our stealthiness and be less likely seen?

James

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this was something to do with interacting with objects in missions (often refered to as glowies or blinkies by many). I'm not sure what they have in mind to deal with the issue. There might already be something in place added to one of the recent patches, or there may still be something in development. I think the developers want to close of an exploit, but do so in a manner that doesn't interfere with the gaming of those who aren't trying to take advantage of the exploit. It's one of the risk vs. rewards issues. As for suppression for stealth in general, I haven't heard of any such thing so far. Only for the clicking of objects.

AV is a common abbreviation used to describe Arch-Villains and with the inclusion of City of Villains it may also include Heroes.

Trying to dismiss my viewpoint by calling me a fanboi/fanboyz (along with anyone else who disagrees with your viewpoint)? Isn't that just being plain lazy? Meh, then again I spend so much time playing, it's not like I've spent the time to sift through the forums to grab all the quotes to back up all my insights.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With so much of the insanity that explodes across these boards everytime the developers make a change or a mistake is made, it's not suprising they only talked about the here and the now with what the players knew. Why discuss changes that might not be needed and therefore not be released? In the end they decided they were needed after all and implemented them. It doesn't seem to matter how they handle things though, there turns out to be a spectacle regardless. They tried to play it cautiously and it blew up in their face anyway. Seems to be no matter what they do they lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is doublespeak of Orwellian magnitude. The boards exploded in a way NEVER SEEN BEFORE over ED. This was because of what had been done, how it had been done, and because the LAST nerf was sold specifically on the idea that something like this would NEVER be done, hence slotting could compensate for base-value reductions to a certain extent.

To claim that the company failed to tell us because we might not like it, and so it was better to just lie to us, mislead us, and then implement it in a backdoor fashion calling it "diversification" and hiding it behind an NDA SO THAT IT WOULDN'T MAKE US AS ANGRY OR TO AVOID PLAYER BACKLASH is just ridiculous.

Players get mad when changes are made that they don't like. Players get more angry when changes are made that they don't like with no warning and little testing. They get even MORE angry when all the testing they HAVE done, and past complaints they have made, result in MORE changes in the SAME direction with NO warning and LITTLE testing. To then tell them "it's to encourage you to slot more effectively", exactly how the LAST nerf was essentially explained away, is just BEGGING for a volcanic eruption.

First came the earthquake, THEN came the Tsunami.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, then the developers would now know better to inform players beforehand. Then again, what about all those players that left before even trying the changes? Not telling people would prevent these losses. Just a thought.

These changes are all part of a series of changes that are yet incomplete. It's like tasting a meal before it's finished cooking. Some meals you can sample and they will taste good right away. Others require for all the steps involved to be completed before the meal can truly be appreciated. This is one of those "meals." And later on of course there will be small tweaks, like adding a little more salt or pepper to adjust the flavor of the food as needed. A good example of a meal such as this would be lasagna. So for now I think we should all just sit back and enjoy the aroma from the kitchen and then we can enjoy the meal when it's ready.

No need to rewrite history and sugarcoat it. I'm simply trying to remove this shroud that several angry players have placed upon these forums that have been demonizing everything the developers have been doing. Shining a light in the dark so to speak. It's an almost futile task given my lack of ability to communicate intent and information as well as the fact that people have the tendancy to only see what they want to see. On top of that I've let my anger with some of the content in these forums cloud my judgement several times and at this point it has severely tarnished reputation as a poster in these forums. As for quotes I'll have to go looking when I have more time. I have several important things I have to do tomorrow early in the day so I can't spend all night searching through the forums.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was no 'might be' about it.

Sure there was but it happened and that's all that matters.

[ QUOTE ]
All playtests, QA checks, difficulty adjustments and balances have been done with Enhancement Diversification in mind since March 2005.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was planned and implemented (ED) and led to a huge explosion here on the boards

The boards just want to explode. It is their purpose. It is so on any internet gaming forum.

My how history gets a bit twisted with the passage of time.

Statesman himself said that ED wasn't a done deal at the time of I5. Your quote doesn't actually disprove this fact. It does prove that they've had the system in place for quite some time and could have possibly pushed it out much earlier if they saw it as needed immediately.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the issue.

All developer playtests, QA checks, difficulty adjustments and balances have been done with Enhancement Diversification in mind since 2005.

But all player testing, player feedback, player comments prior to the announcement of ED was done without Enhancement Diversification. There had been NOTHING to suggest that it was going to be changed. And many of the complaints for players (particularly in terms of recharge times) were answered by rednames pointing out the effect of the change with permahasten and six slotting.

ED may not have been a "done deal" but if we are to trust the first statement it was pretty clearly something they were considering. They knew we were evaluating I4 and I5 without ED in mind.

Had it been presented as something to consider during testing, as something they are testing internally and may happen, at the very least the feedback would have been different.

[/ QUOTE ]

With so much of the insanity that explodes across these boards everytime the developers make a change or a mistake is made, it's not suprising they only talked about the here and the now with what the players knew. Why discuss changes that might not be needed and therefore not be released? In the end they decided they were needed after all and implemented them. It doesn't seem to matter how they handle things though, there turns out to be a spectacle regardless. They tried to play it cautiously and it blew up in their face anyway. Seems to be no matter what they do they lose.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you're just being obstinate here. ED is incorporated into the design of CoV, meaning that to roll back ED all of CoV would have to be redone.

[/ QUOTE ]

BUZZ Wrong, see i was in CoV Beta...ED was added in th e weak before it went live...it was /never/ intergrated with it

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the devs thought of ED on that day, coded it all up and put it in the game. The point he was making is that the CoV ATs were designed with the knowledge that ED was going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

and by that logic "issue 5" was thoug of with ED in mind...EXCEPT

the devs said outright that if you 6 sloted defensive powers your be fine....

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've read, the changes in Issue 5 were done with the knowledge that ED might have to be put in place if the changes in Issue 5 weren't enough. So at that time they were presenting things in that fashion because they hadn't done enough testing to know if ED would be needed at all. After collecting the data they decided that ED was indeed needed. Now that ED has been around and they have more data collected I understand that they are now going to begin tweaking things with small buffs in those areas where they are needed to rebalance things. With things as they are after these changes they have a much better idea which powers and powersets as well as which archetypes are underperforming and by how much. I don't however expect these changes too much until the Defense Scaling is added. They will either be released simultaneously or after DS so that more testing can be done. Maybe even a little of both.

Did you reply to that twice?

Oh, and still interloping.

Interloping.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Changing the title of a thread in the Developer's Corner is just uncool in my opinion. I don't even think you guys are talking about the endurance discount anymore anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow......what gave you that idea?......



[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it was because I was paying attention?

Changing the title of a thread in the Developer's Corner is just uncool in my opinion. I don't even think you guys are talking about the endurance discount anymore anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, Personamorpher, I know we don't often agree, but I want to tell you I think your "vision" in your sig line is a magnificent idea.

Now THAT is a constructive suggestion!!!

Dasher

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I have to give credit to Satanic_Hamster for that one. It's his idea. I just found it so ammusing I had to add it to my signature. If you've been around Hamster long enough you'd know how very Hammy and idea it is (as in Hamster-ish, not cortn). For those who miss out on the idea if I change my signature I'll quote it here:

[ QUOTE ]
I...

I have a vision.

The Shard, open to both Heroes and Villains. But we're all on the same side.

Satanic_Hamster

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
congratulations you just won an award for the most posts in a row by the same person!

[/ QUOTE ]

Five? FIVE? Five in a row? That's...most?

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember getting at least as high as 7 or 8 in another thread after responding to several posts at 5 in the morning when hardly anyone else was on.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many good posts did you hear on ED? I'm dissapointed that above all you choose to take away a nerf so small that only effects a portion of the players yet you didn't take out the nerf that damaged so many. I don't want to bring up the ED posts again, but this is just my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if ED was proving to be detremental to the game, they would remove it. Just like they did to the boss changes. Just like the toned down the "Purple Patch" when they realized that it was too harsh.

[/ QUOTE ]

That and it was a change they feel is absolutely neccesary to the balance of the game. They didn't want to add any future content (especially high-end content) without fixing this first. I think players are forgetting that they are probably datamining everything as we struggle through this so they can figure out any future tweaks needed to fix everything that might be underperforming. So just hang in there and we'll see what changes the future brings us.

[ QUOTE ]
Hey my tankers would love to have I5 tanker nerf done away with and live with just ED but no that is not going to happen its the affect of both that got me where it counts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we still have very little information on the future changes to be made to the game. My guess would be that they have been collecting data on how things have been performing, and after anylizing this information they will make chabges as needed in the form of some small buffs. I'm not saying that there still aren't a few nerfs comming, but my guess is that they're going to be relatively small and not so close together.