Aura_Familia

Originally Posted by DumpleBerry

Oh yes, I remember the days of debt that lapped multiple levels.

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow

Except "that other game" also fails to offer any sort of teaming incentive, whereas ours offers a pretty fat experience and influence buff to those on a team. Granted, it's less than what you get solo, but a LOT more than 1/8 of what you get solo, which is how things tend to be divided elsewhere.

No-one teams because there's no incentive, not because there's no need. There's a difference.

Originally Posted by DumpleBerry

Not much of a constructive answer, but I have a hearty "Ell Oh Ell" for all those people who have crapped on my posts re: a legitimate black market emerging for items that exceed the inf. cap.

I said it would happen. So did most Marketeers. Now, that TP protection IO is selling for 3.8B off the Market. A cap isn't going to magically reduce demand.

For the OP, yes, apparently this is WAI for now.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville

|<------ Scrappers ------>|
|-|<-------------------- Blasters -------------------->|

Originally Posted by Dispari

One other thing that CoH has is that each of those different paths is a valid choice.

Having played games like WoW, Ragnarok Online, and Guild Wars, I know that there are certain classes that people just don't want at all. Past that, even if you're the right class, you have to be the right BUILD too. In all those games, if you want to team regularly, there's only so many ways you can build your character. You don't have the freedom to explore and try out powers and see what you like, because for people to take you seriously you have to be built in a certain way, and have certain powers.

In CoH, if I'm looking for a damage dealer I can take a wide variety of ATs. Blaster, Scrapper, Brute, Dominator, Stalker, VEAT, even Corruptors, Masterminds, and Khelds. What's more, if I do want a Blaster, it doesn't matter if the Blaster is Fire, Ice, Sonic, or Radiation. Each one contributes in its own way. A team can thrive with a Thermal on the team, or not have one at all. A team can have a powerful Tanker in the lead, or not even have a Tanker on the team. Pretty much every character and every build is a valid choice.

Originally Posted by Dark_Respite

Yep!



*sighs* It was a joke.

Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite

Originally Posted by Eva Destruction

Well, forum PvPing against yourself is one way to win at PvP....

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow

Finally, standardization will likely make characters play a lot more alike, and whether that is a good thing is a subject of debate. I, personally, happen to believe that the massive differences between Blaster types are best left as differences between the different ATs, rather than between powerset combos within the same AT. That doesn't mean they should play the SAME, but they ought to play similarly enough to where you can all hold them to the same rules. This is currently not even remotely the case.

Originally Posted by Eva Destruction

I think you may be on to something here, that a lot of competitive players don't realize. Not everyone learns the same way. Just because YOU learned to be a better player by getting pwnd repeatedly, doesn't mean that's the best way for someone else to learn.

Originally Posted by Eva Destruction

Take into the account the fact that a lot of people are simply inarticulate, and spewing tired catchphrases like "survival of the fittest" is a lot easier than actually saying what you mean, it looks like everyone is just a jerk. Eventually it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle of jerkitude.

Originally Posted by Eva Destruction

It would be nice to be able to search for a "short" arc and actually get a short arc, instead of a farm. Usually a bad or obsolete farm.



We have one. It's called the "Edit" button. That is easy though, possibly too easy for people who make an arc just because they can, leave it up because they made it, and don't actually care enough to actually keep it up to date. I'm leaning toward requiring the arc to actually be played to remain in the search window, with author plays counting. I feel people should be subjected to the punishment they wish to inflict on others.

Originally Posted by LaserJesus

I just wanted to chime in that it's not the rating system that's broken, it's the MA search window. Aside from 5 stars being higher on the list than 4 stars and so on, I can't make any damn sense of how that thing sorts out arcs. Add to that the fact that invalid arcs aren't automatically removed from the search, and you've got the 4 star section (where pretty much any arc with any kind of decent amount of plays almost always ends up) filled with old farming missions.

Frankly, that's probably the biggest problem with the system as it works right now. It functions like a giant heap of things that you have to dig through to find what you want, instead of a store where you browse through products that are on display. Every arc that hasn't been taken down is up there forever, regardless of whether anyone has played it in months, or if it can even BE played. Implementing a system where arcs become "inactive" and no longer show up on the search window after say, a month without anyone playing, editing, or perhaps the author hitting a "refresh my arcs" button in the published stories tab would clear up the system immensely.

If no one is playing the arc, and the author doesn't care enough to hit a button every month to update their active status, then as far as I'm concerned no one will really miss the arc, and it should be cleared out of the search window so arcs that people are playing and arcs with authors with an interest in getting plays can be showcased properly.

Originally Posted by Eva Destruction

Except we weren't talking about Venture, who rates arcs based on criteria within the author's control. We're talking about downrating arcs that contain custom critters because they give reduced rewards. That's like downrating an arc that contains Freakshow or Hydra because they give reduced rewards.

I am talking about people who seem to feel the entirety of the playerbase should cater to THEIR likes and dislikes. People who post stuff like "I immediately 1-star anything with a defeat-all in it." Even though in many cases arc descriptions allow them to easily weed out arcs that don't cater to them. If rewards matter that much to you, avoid custom groups. Simple. If an arc includes them it will say so in the description.

Edit: And since people are still reporting instances of what is 99 percent of the time ratings griefing for no purpose other than to make you not have a 5-star rating, I'm guessing the GMs are a bit slow with the ban stick.

Originally Posted by Sister_Twelve

So that basically, to me, means that it actually doesn't much matter what the rating average of the arc is. The system itself is broken. There are presumably more than 340,000 missions now. The chances of any arc emerging from that large a pool, no matter how good or how bad, is diminishingly small.

Originally Posted by Eva Destruction

Currently it's also likely that you will make a story that someone doesn't like because it has a better rating than theirs. When it doesn't have a good rating, all those people suddenly dislike it so much they won't even click "Play."



I'm fine with that. You shouldn't be giving 5-stars to arcs you didn't finish anyway. How do you know the ending doesn't suck? Besides, if an arc is good enough to merit 5 stars I'll leave it open and finish it later.



You get their global. 1-stars are anonymous.



Uh, we have those.



That is a legitimate reason for disliking an arc. Not too helpful to the author, as far as feedback goes, but most in-game feedback isn't anyway.

Originally Posted by Another_Fan

He is rating on what he considers important. What any user rating system will generate is a reflection of what the overall users enjoyed. Baskin Robbins may have 31 flavors but I bet they sell more vanilla and chocolate than anything else.

Originally Posted by Eva Destruction

Creating custom critters that give NO rewards is different from creating custom critters that give REDUCED rewards.

Critters that give no rewards are due to either a conscious choice on the author's part, or the author's ignorance and apathy. If your custom critter's oh so precious concept requires removal of a Standard power (and often the addition of other powers that make the critter more difficult than a Standard critter but still give no rewards) then you need to rethink your concept to match the available tools. We've been doing it with player characters for five years. And if you can't be bothered to run through your arc after publication to make sure everything is rewarding as it should, then you shouldn't have published it.

Critters that give reduced rewards on the other hand, are usually due to a lack of balance in the risk/reward ratio with custom critters. If you create customs with full rewards, they will all hit Build Up, people will die, and complain that your critters are too hard. And rightly so. Given the choice between reduced rewards and instant ragequit, which would most people prefer?

Originally Posted by Golden Girl

I usually give like 3-4 stars - but a few get 5s

I think there should be more filters in the search - like one that lets you view only 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 star arcs for example - so you could filter, say, "Heroic" morality, then filter what star level you wanted, then sort them after publishing date, as well as the number of times they'd been played.

Originally Posted by Aisynia

That's what petitions are for >.<

Originally Posted by Shubbie

How I rate arcs is meaningless, the amount of arcs I do play are pretty insignificant, and they fact I take off stars for poor rewards is also meaningless. Unless you also believe other players do the same thing. Reward is a meaningful motivator for many players.

But lets forget about that for the moment.

Yes the ratings system is just one other thing thats broken. The search is broken. THe reward system both punnishes writers and lavishes rewards on farmers.

Im not saying AE is bad, it just needs work, and the devs seem to be showing no interest in it.