Aura_Familia

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do think this game is part of a niche market. I am sure they acquired a ton of comic book and superhero fans. That doesn't mean everyone that plays is a comic book or superhero fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you're right in regards to their being players that aren't comic book or superhero fans. Originally this game didn't start out as "niche", the release was widely successful. WoW then blew the doors off in terms of "success". And rightfully so, Blizzard is practically a household name when it comes to PC games. The sustained success of WoW doesn't really surprise me at all.

The "gimmick" term is applied to the marketing tactic used to create a successful launch for the game. Again, I repeat that I'm sure it was Statesman's goal to create a largely successful game with a subscription base much larger than what the current one is. Thus, "gimmick" - adds in superhero comic books to appeal to that group of people. Superheroes in an MMO. That was the advertising focus. The game is now more of a "niche", hell even Jack himself has stated this.

The other features (no looting, etc) appealed to many players, undoubtedly. But the biggest thing at the start I'm sure was the idea of playing a Superhero. Just like Star Wars was aimed mainly at fans of the movies. Apparently that's hard for DarqAura to understand.

In regards to why the subscriptions didn't jump after the success of Heroes... Well, it's not like Cryptic decided to air commercials on NBC for the game. There hasn't been much more advertising that I've seen for the game recently, aside from the Internet.

[/ QUOTE ]


Oh I most certainly understand. I just disagree with your opinion and analysis. Which is all our views are, opinion.

And I think if you looked at the market at the time that this game came out it becoming a niche could be easily seen. There was still a crap load of fantasy games out, which were the most successful.

I just could never see this game becoming as large as WoW, even if it were another game made by someone other than blizzard. Cause the assumption was made that all those who enjoyed superheros would enjoy playing an mmo. That's a pretty big jump to make there.

The point about Heroes is well taken. Yet again even if they did advertise on that show, I don't think they would have gotten that many more folks. Cause again, can't assume that those who would watch a show like heroes would read a traditional comic book (traditional as in men in tights and cape type) or even play an mmo.

Now when the MUO comes out I can see it being more than a niche or a gimmick. Marvel is a household name in multiple entertainment fronts. I'd say they are just about as recognizable as Blizzard, if not more so. (Not going to discuss the DC game, as its being made by SOE.) Incidentally in trying to get back on topic I have heard that MUO will pvp from the start. But since so far its nothing but vapoware (so far) until 2008 or 2009, that remains to be seen.

[ QUOTE ]
There is always someone better...
If you get taken down one to many times for your liking by the same hero/villain, get your friends out there to help you. Granted, they'll get more friends, you'll get more friends... who knows, maybe you will make.... Friends.... aww...

Honestly, I've never really seen people brag or "punk" so much in PvP, the only cross traffic you really see other than conversations, are "Good job," "Nice," "What was that power?" or, "Oh my god, leave me the hell alone, I'm just trying to farm."
In my experience anyhow... I see a lot more whining than I do somebody going on about how powerful they are... The only smack talk is against those whiny kids who start flooding the broadcast lines with curses and empty threats.
Again... IME...

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why i've started pvping with broadcast off.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Many came to this game cause they wanted to avoid loot and traditional pvp games.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just like many people came to this game wanting loot and PvP.

Who the hell are you to know the reason people play a game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch it. I notice i said many, not all.

Please calm down.

I was implying that some folks came to this game in the begining (when there was no loot or pvp) to get away from those mmo traditions.

Again, notice I didn't say all.

ANYWAY....

Back on topic, this game's audience would participate more in pvp more if the devs supported it.

However, pvp can't exist without the pve side. And vice verson.

As TL said a balanced view is that both are needed to maintain a healthy MMO.

The question is how far should the devs go to catering to either side.

I would say equally. Some would disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of whether or not it was the first/only Superhero MMO on the market, or is still today - it's still a gimmick. It drew plenty of people that were new to MMOs right in because it had a general relation to comic books and characters they were familiar with.

WoW may not be the first Fantasy MMO, but it still has the Fantasy gimmick. That's the primary reason why I ended up getting this game, though it's not the reason why I've stayed so long, I'm sure the same could be said for a large portion of the playerbase... Save the foreigners on Virtue that no one cares about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm fantasy is the gimmick as its the most used type of MMO on the market. Something not that used (like a superhoro mmo) is a niche. There's difference.

Also I think you underestimate how many people came here for reasons other than it being a superhero mmo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because Statesman developed this game with the intention of only appealing to a small "niche" market, right? Think of how large the comic book industry is, and how many people recognize superheroes and comics today. Wouldn't it make sense for Statesman to try and appeal to that market so that the game would be successful?

And it was, very much so. CoH didn't start out as a "niche" game, and the superhero method of play wasn't "niche" either, it was a gimmick used to appeal to a large audience to bring in the subscribers. The game is "niche" now, but it wasn't when it was first released.

Get off my nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever Statesmen intended the point is the market is what the market is. And I think you overvalue how many folks read comics AND also play video games and MMOs. Just cause someone likes comics and recognizes superheroes does not in any way shape or form automatically mean they will play an MMo or a video game based on them.

Many came to this game cause they wanted to avoid loot and traditional pvp games. Which explians the vehment opposition to inventions when loot was frist mentioned (though that has died down) and continuous reality that pvp just is not as popular as the pve side with this audience. (though it could well be if the devs supported it more).

How many folks recognize the image of superman? How many folks know what the hell blizzard is or the names of their games? Which genre of MMO has more players? My point is not who everyone likes mmos likes superheroes. If that was the case we should have seen a sudden influx of new players with the rise in popularity of the show Heroes. Yet we haven't have we?

Was always niche. And was not a gimmick. Your argument about superheroes is in direct contradiction to you calling a superhero MMO a gimmick. logic for the loss.

If you don't want discussion on a DISCUSSION forum, take your nuts someplace else.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PvP in this game is a joke. It was never designed to deal with the complex nature of PvP. You want to see a thoughtful game system designed from the bottom up with PvP in mind? Look at Guild Wars. Otherwise, you'll just continue forcing a half-[censored] product as an end result because you simply cannot change the basic functions of the game at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply untrue, I was in the closed testing for GW for a year before its release and I am very aware of the balancing mechanisms in GW. CoX does have some basic issues that GW dodged, ie no hard mezzes and no defense the way that we understand it here. In GW what they call defense is what we would call resistance here. Having said that there isn't anything structural that makes it impossible to achieve balance in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except TL, there has to be a want on the part of the dev team to change things.

That "want" is still lacking unfortunatly. Though THAT is slowly changing.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of whether or not it was the first/only Superhero MMO on the market, or is still today - it's still a gimmick. It drew plenty of people that were new to MMOs right in because it had a general relation to comic books and characters they were familiar with.

WoW may not be the first Fantasy MMO, but it still has the Fantasy gimmick. That's the primary reason why I ended up getting this game, though it's not the reason why I've stayed so long, I'm sure the same could be said for a large portion of the playerbase... Save the foreigners on Virtue that no one cares about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm fantasy is the gimmick as its the most used type of MMO on the market. Something not that used (like a superhoro mmo) is a niche. There's difference.

Also I think you underestimate how many people came here for reasons other than it being a superhero mmo.

[ QUOTE ]
The game was successful from the start due to the gimmick, the audience that it appeals/appealed to. PvP can be a big draw if it is promoted and maintained - unfortunately, the pvp in this game hasn't received either of the two, promotion or maintenance - aside from promotion done by the playerbase.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that what attracted people to game was that it was gimmick. One of the number one things that people state for coming here are one of these three:

1. Its a superhero game--the only one. That's not a gimmick.
2. It has no pvp (this coming mostly from folks that were burnt out from pvp in other games).
3. It has no crafting or loot grinding. (though strangely now some of those same folks are praising the inventions system. go figure).

Again, i'm yet to see a PVP only game that sustains itself.

However, a pve game without pvp won't evlove. You cannot have one without the other.

"pvp pays the bills" is an opinion, one that has not been proven true by ANY game on the market so far.

Notice I said so far.

[ QUOTE ]
So this pretty much says there will be no new powersets in I10. Nail in the coffin for me. I'm out!

[/ QUOTE ]

Can i have your stuff? :-P

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with the cost/beneift analysis being the only thing that should determine if something vary major is undertaken by the devs.

The cost/benefit of inventions versus new ATs, content, epic ats, powersets, zones, and arcs is one example of where sometimes fun trumps cost/benefit analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor do I feel it should be the only thing, and I didn't suggest it should. I was talking specifically about the cost/benefit analysis of improving the core engine to support larger mass combat as a slider setting. I consider the "cost" of that analysis to include time lost for working on new powersets/ATs, new mission features, fixing old bugs and other things that would require programmer resources. (I feel pretty confident that the mission and zone editing staff are not the same as the programming staff.)

[ QUOTE ]
Also the subsequent change to PS should have been noted in the patch notes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe there was a change to PS. There was a change to Hamidon, or possibly to the "Untouchable" status effect (which affects more than PS) to give Hamidon a free pass. None of the changes to Hamidon were enumerated in the patch notes.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is not only a change to hamidon, its a fundamental change in how a power works. If there are exceptions to how a power works then those exceptions should at least be listed in the power description.

Ex: PA is invincible could be changed to PA is invicible to all, except certain higher level entities.

But yes I agree patch note changes to Hami are not needed or advised.

Also, neither you or I know if the core engine would have to be touched to support larger mass combat, as only the devs know what needs to be done. The fact that the programming staff and zone/editing staff are not the same is also an aside, as you might still need the programming staff to program the AI for the new behavior in these missions and/or zone (if the new behavior was say for only the moon zone.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not true. Challenge can come in numbers, which I have said many times over the years is the first and foremost way the devs could turn this game around.

[/ QUOTE ]

The devs have addressed this in the past, when talking about the GDN in I5. People suggested increasing the number of foes instead of nerfing defenses. The response was that the game doesn't handle it well. Imagine an 8-person team where there were 10 foes per player per spawn. The problem isn't the servers but the game engine, and interactions of that with people's client computers. As mentioned, some people can't play with masterminds due to the lag it causes them.

Sure, maybe they could spend time working on the core graphics engine, or the core game event loop which we see slow down at events like Hamidon raids. The question is one of cost/benefit. Is that really going to bring back enough people to bother with the time and effort? It seems to me we might already have the answer to that.

Beyond that, there are balance problems with large numbers of minor foes. AoE powers (and thus AoE powersets) gain a trenendous economy in such situations. Single-target attacks suffer from overkill, making them involve much wasted endurance, while AoEs can apply that overkill to their AoE limit in foes, making them vastly more efficient in both endurance and time. This would almost certainly spill over into other mechanics, such as the current drop rate mechanics of Inventions, which are currently at least partly on a per-mob basis. People would be farming these "en masse" missions within minutes of their arrival.

Personally, I can tell you I wouldn't find enjoyable a setting that surrounded me with gimpy foes. As true to classic comic imagery as that is, I don't do that now. I play on the settings that give me fewer, higher-level foes, because I enjoy the harder one-on-one fighting, even consistently from minion to minion, more than I do mowing faster through large numbers of foes. My opinion on this in no way invalidates yours, but I present it to show that your ideas of what would make the game better aren't universal. Could your ideas be a good game? Of course, and maybe better than CoH ... assuming a fresh start with those goals in mind. My perspective is rooted in the history of what this game is now and how it got here, mixed with some of the realities the devs have explained to us about limitations and their own time constraints.

Don't take my perspective, which I consider to be something of a realist's viewpoint, to mean I am a dev fanboy. I'm not. I don't hate the devs, and I don't think they ruined the game. But there are past decisions and new ones with I9 that I despise and don't feel are justified. I think some powersets are still unnecessarily weak. I do think this game can be better than it is. I just don't happen to think that mass solo combat is required for it to be better. I don't think a repeal of the GDN or even ED, which I disliked intensely, are called for.

Nor do I think that making Hamidon blast through "Untouchable" status is a sign of a coming nerfpocalypse. Time will tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with the cost/beneift analysis being the only thing that should determine if something vary major is undertaken by the devs.

The cost/benefit of inventions versus new ATs, content, epic ats, powersets, zones, and arcs is one example of where sometimes fun trumps cost/benefit analysis.

However, I agree that a super powerful being should know how to evolve.

Also if they could have coded it where PS was not hit by the PA change, I'm sure they would have.

However, they now need to change the power description of PA. As its no longer accurate. There is an exception to its current description that players SHOULD be made aware of.

Also the subsequent change to PS should have been noted in the patch notes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well I see the idea but I think it's just too' lazy of the Devs not explain why he can now hit you though PS.
I think a better fix would've been to just make him ignor anything that's PSed. PAs included. That would solve the tanking prob.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a living organism; he adapted to his environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got Dev Pwned

[/ QUOTE ]

ya, srsly

DAMNIT! Now I'm sorry I missed it.

That would have been a blast to see.

[ QUOTE ]
Not directed at Arcanaville:

I just get a kick out of several people claiming "This game wasn't designed with PvP in mind."

I don't think the Devs were/are that shortsighted.
The very first picture I saw of CoH was a screenshot on a gaming website about this new Superhero MMo coming out. The picture sowed 2 heroes attacking each other.
Also, don't you find it odd how closely most of the powersets performed in PvP when I4 hit test? Don't get me wrong, there were some obvious power differences with some sets, but other than Regen getting nerfed and the redo of how defense works, most other things have been "tweaks".

Sorry, but anyone with half of a functioning brain cell could forsee a "City of Villains" game coming after City of Heroes, and PvP would be a natural development.

My thoughts on why things seem kinda messed up:
1) Cryptic Dev team is not nearly as large as alot of other MMOs.
2) Dev team has a pretty limited budget.
3) Dev team is probably spread thin with the addition of other projects such as Marvel Online and the next "City Of" franchise in the works.

Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, sick and on meds.

[/ QUOTE ]

That all might be fine and good, but the pvp side was not advertised prior to the arenas. So I can see how some folks would not assume that pvp was coming.

Also the implementation, no matter the planning or intention to have pvp eventually, (I would argue due to lack of planning) is something to be desired in SOME cases.

However overall, this game has the best pvp system if I have seen for an MMO in a long time.

As for the ARENA, the crashing more than anything I think drove many folks away. The imbalances also, but maybe less than the constant crashing and unselectable maps..

Also the powersets DID NOT function closely at all in terms of power. Hence the current FOTM phenomenon we see still to this day.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, aside from what Castle came along and said, I think it would be pretty weird if they thought PA dropping was a gimmick but a Braveheart charge of Shivans wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way they have fixed PA dropping versus Hami . . .

Take that for what you will.

The term of the committee as I understand its is to organize the event and that's it. But I could be wrong.

This committee is in no way there to promote bug fixes or try to get new pvp additions.

From what I've read its a temp committee formed to make one kick [censored] PVP event, granted the GET APPROVAL from the developer and publisher of the game.

That's all they existing to do as I understand it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

IME, the only time I have short battles is either in the Arena where the time contstraint forces the action and you have two people who want to fight a priori, or against go-for-broke blasters or people who just aren't very good at PvP.

I recall a fight against a BS/Regen in Warburg that took me 35 minutes to finally beat him and it was a monument to patience and tactical planning and execution.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree (for the most part) with Mieux here. PvP combat is not a series of insta kills when the player's skill level is close to being even. When high skill team PvP groups have a match, the total kill count is often below 30 and its not uncommon to see matches where neither team gets into double digit kills in 10 or 20 minute matches. These are groups that would get over a hundred kills against an inexperienced team. I don't agree that the arena causes short battles.

[/ QUOTE ]

/qft, and from observation. Watching your old sg'smatches T_L, I've seen arena matches that are certainly not short if they opponents are skilled.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
slower fights

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. The speed is the #1 ingredient keeping me and the majority of PvP'ers I know in the game. When people talk about how innovative CoX PvP the speed is usually forming the core of that opinion.

If I wanted slow I wouldn't have quit WoW PvP. The day I find myself running across Siren's using Sprint and Fitness (as the norm, not b/c I'm debuffed) is the day I quit CoX as well.

Give an Arena option to completely turn off travel powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

/qft. Arcana, I think you are a very smart problem and I like most of your ideas. But I think your idea of slowing down pvp in coh is off the wall.

Interesting discussion.

1. 50/50
2 and 3 I agree with the general consensus.
3. 50/50

[ QUOTE ]
I gotta agree with PsyPunk here.

When the PvPEC was created the dedicated, hardcore PvPers were pretty happy (though there was a few splits) that PvP was getting attention.

We keep hearing about a big event a story arc thing...I gotta ask...huh?

If there's one thing about Paragon City and the Rogue Isles, they're very static. Faultline changing is the biggest change I can remember. So how is a multi-month PvP event going to alter my contacts, my missions, my story arcs, my experience gains and so on?

If you want to create a backdrop to it fantastic, go to it...but consider all the PvPers here.

Give the hardcores stuff to do on Test and here.
Give the 'every now and thens' something to do as well.
Make some events that involve non-50s...not everyone has a stable of 50s to choose from.

How about some teasers like what we had for Hamidon or Inventions or whatnot?

Because right I know I do PvP occasionally and I organize on my server but if something big is happening concurrent to Issue 9, would be nice to see some 'ads'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except I don't think this is concurrent to Issue 9. From what I've seen so far this will really get rolling AFTER the issue launces. More like in between issues 9 and 10.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, all of those games mentioned have healthy, strong MOD communities which constantly churn out new maps, weaponry, and options. None of them are remotely the same as they were the day they were released, and most of the modifications come from fans who donated their time to create/alter content.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always wondered why MMORPGs did not try harder to develop ways for fan-based content to be published. Players on this forum have asked numerous times for the ability to design missions, and even given certain constraints to avoid "freebie" designs that gave too much reward for the risk, it sure seems like players would happily generate content for each other.

I fully realize that such a system would still have costs - developers would have to review content before publishing, which is no small task - but I still wonder if, ultimately, this would be a better use of the subscription dollars than doing all the content development centrally. (In a way, it's like the Cathedral vs. the Bazaar all over again.)

Any thoughts on that topic? Has Cryptic even theoretically toyed with opening that Pandora's box?

- Protea

[/ QUOTE ]

I know quite a few people who would love to tinker with the game engine and come up with some interesting stuff. Especially for the shadow shard.

Back when i used to play single player computer games (stopped ever since coh started consuming my time) Neverwinter Nights was one of the games I followed. Let me tell you, the modding community for that game was off the wall!!!! The stuff they came up with was amazing. So amazing that the publisher actually made some of them into modules that were polished up and re-sold!

Damn good game NN was/is. I'm pretty sure the modding community is also still going strong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I, and I have every reason to believe Im a typical MMORPG player, have no interest in a FPS PVP game.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you may be overlooking is that FPS players might be attracted to a particular MMO.

I came here with a moderately large contingent of RL friends who knew one another partially because of RL and partially because we played an FPS together (and competitively, at that).

Not everyone stayed, and not everyone who stayed plays regularly. Some of that is lack of interest in PvE, some of that is "gamer ADD" by which I mean to describe people who constantly hop to whatever is new and shiny. But some of us settled in and stayed.

When I play PvP FPS games, I play them for keeps. I also play team combat games, not "deathmatch", except as a skill honing exercise. Competitive deathmatch bores me. When I'm plaing on a team, I am not into casual play, because I don't like to lose. Playing a team game to win means playing often and intently, with organized practices, review of character/team builds, tactics and team interaction. You need to know everyone on your team, their strengths and their weaknesses.

I was usually in a position of authority but not leadership, such as a defense captain or lieutenant "clan" leader. I take positions of leadership or authority seriously - that means being at every practice, and contributing to the team.

That is draining. I did it for five years across two games. I came here and this MMO looked a fair bit like an FPS (albeit a pure PvE one). It was a nice outlier in the MMO world, with a close enough FPS feel to attract me away. And PvE is relaxing to me. There is no one to best. No one to train and practice against. Anyone I team with can be the most aweome or just "OK" and that'll work most times.

You see, I don't do MMOs. This is the exception for me. I will never play WoW. I will never play Lineage. I dabbled with GW and backed away because I saw it as "serious" PvP with all the things above I was burned out on. What I consider "real" PvP requires a time commitment I'm not up for any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

And thus a real life example of why I think there are variances with fpsers, rtsers, mmo pvpers, and mmo pvpers. Trying to lump them into one group misses many nuances.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

also I want to point out I would be wary of anything posted by MMOrgchart.

As has been stated several times in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Including by me, with the caveat that the information my point was depending on was highly reliable because the data is publicly available as part of NCSoft's and Blizzard's SEC filings. While it may be difficult to get exact subscription numbers on say the number of subs in SWG, because SOE is ashamed of those numbers its not that hard to get numbers on WoW, CoH, L2, GW, and most "successful" games.

[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: Also I see MMOs and RTF and FPS as all different genres. You can't really lump all those statistics together because the reasons (and audience of) one plays an MMO pvp game is different than that of an FPS. I myself HATE FPS and RTFs with a passion. MMO pvp is what actually attracted me.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the areas where the public data is weak, there is much better (private) information available that provides strong correlation between these groups but I hate to even bring it up because I can't share it.

[ QUOTE ]

Also these links to statistics do nothing to show that the idea that "most find pvp as having more replability" as nothing more than opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dispute the concept that gamers can be treated as group, then we have to use logic.

We know that for the games that segregate PvP from PvE zones that the number of PvE zones is overwhelming in the favor of the PvE side of the equation. In CoX there are 4 PvP zones and the Arena (bases could be counted as well, but they aren't exclusively for PvP). There are 26 or 27 (IIRC) PvE zones on the CoH side and 8 more on the CoV side. The fact that the PvP zones get any degree of usage indicates a high correspondence with replay value.

I haven't done this kind of survey, but it would be interesting to record names of players and characters in the zones for a period of months and see what the reuse numbers were in this game. I can say, without any doubt, that the PvP zones do get more repeat use than any of the PvE zones in this game, part of that is due to the simple fact that there are fewer zones that fit into that category but another part is the fact that there isn't much point of going into Skyway once you're level 32. The same cannot be said of BB or SC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Except you forget some things. Altitis. There isn't much point to go into skyway once you are 32, but your next alt might go there. Thats not guaranteed with BB or SC. Even less with BB, as BB is at a level that is EASILY leveled past, so the draw to even do missions in that zone may be gone. And if shivans weren't there I'd think it'd be used even less than any pve zone or SC or RV.

Also some missions specifically send you back to lower level zones. I know many a mission in the Hollows that are waaay after you have "graduated" out of that zone range.

Also seeing how there are new players everyday, I would argue that the usage between the pve zones and pvp zones is split fairly evenly with NEITHER showing more usage versus the other. Both sides have their usesless and/or nearly always empty zones (boomtown, shadow shard, RV, bloody bay if not for the shivans). And both sides have zones that are the most popular in the game (SC universally on every server, Atlas park). So I don't agree really with zone usage meaning PVP replay value. If we stripped all the pve toys out of bloddy and warburg, would it be used as much? So then the question is, is the replay value based on pure pvp or just pve toys? Which is why I think its dangerous to do a headcount and equate zone usage to pvp or pve preference.

I'll respectfully stop debating the stats with you as it is apparent you know some things that I don't want you having to defy the NDAs you are bound by, from revealing (those darn things really do cripple thoughtful discussion that people can learn from. )

However, I still stand by my point that I don't agree that an only pvp game can push an MMO to be successful without pve. Now Fury might (and honestly I hope it does) prove me wrong, however currently there is no game that can be used for evidence that points to the idea as nothing but opinion.

And you are right, I don't think gamers can be characterized as just one group. There are so many variables there it's not even funny. I strongly believe there ARE concreate differences between FPS, RTS, and MMO pvp audiences. And if not in general at least in THIS GAME's pvp audience. Remember, that you myself and others keep pointing out to the devs that coh's pvp engine is like nothing else out there. If RTS, FPS and MMO PVP audiences are all the same, then it flys in the face of this statement. If we would just be happy with coh pvp being just like any old RTS of FPS, what the hell are we still doing here?

[ QUOTE ]
Well, so, after many twists and turns, we come full circle.

Which is to say it seems we all agree.

The game needs both, and it sounds like everyone agreed on that from the beginning, we just didn't like the sources and sometimes we didn't like the tone.

The next question is still the big one, which is how to improve the crossover and make what are (in my mind, anyway) 2 different games come closer to being one game we can all enjoy in its full length and breadth. Well, not "all," that's overstating. There are 10% on either side of the PvE / PvP issue that will never enjoy the other. But we need to start playing to the 80% in the middle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow for two builds. That would be quick and dirty method.

The more thoughtout methods would be some of the stuff T_L and Arcana have stated.

Though after 2+ years I think a lot of people would not mind if the quick and dirty method were implemented at this point.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also I do not see MMOs and RTS/FPS games as one and the same. To me you HAVE to separate them simply because in MMOs there are variations in the combatants (ATs, classes, etc). There are A LOT less variations in the typical RTS or FPS game than in an MMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely, but the people who play those games are very much the "same". A relatively small portion of gamers report only sticking to only one genre. Just because a game type isn't the same does not mean that elements (and lessons) can't cross those boundaries. BF2 is arguably one of the most popular FPS games of the last several years and it has an advancement mechanic that is straight out of a RPG.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And here I disagree slightly. I know many a people who were TURNED OFF from pvp because of the "nonsense" they claim they saw in FPS and RTS, but love MMO PVP, specifically coh's system cause of the things it breaks away from that are prevelant in FPS and RTS. Now granted I have not played the games they mentioned so I don't know if their claims are as much an exaggeration as "pvpers are poo monkies". But the from reading this thread and other "why do you hate pvp" one of the key issues is that they got burnt out of/hated/tried and didn't like FPS pvp and thus had their minds clossed off from pvp and thus were not willing to try coh pvp.

As for BF2, I've never played it so I will take your word for it. Also I've tried other FPS and RTS, and I hate them. But I love coh's pvp systm. Which is where this dicussion needs to be focused. MMO pvp. The issue (at least as I understood it) was whether a pvp-only MMO can do well in the current market. I don't know and it remains to be seen, as Fury is the only one attempting it.

So I don't necessarily agree that those who play fps rts and mmo pvp are the same.

[ QUOTE ]

I would hope games like Fury do not subscribe to this. (I still haven't gotten a chance to test the game personally).

[/ QUOTE ]

Balance, or more accurately the lack there of, is one of the major reasons that some of the early (and the less well thought out) PvP implementations got a black eye. Balance is critical for PvP to flourish, which is one reason I get passionate about that topic. However, just because its harder to balance MMO's than FPS games doesn't mean it shouldn't be done or lower the value of PvP in MMO's. Its just one of the hurdles (one that CoX stumbled on) between wanting a good PvP implementation and getting one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it should have a lower value, however as I found you saying recently to Arcana, sometime balance just needs to take a back seat to fun. If they ever balance coh pvp in a way that everyone feels just like everyone else (a common complaint about FPS pvp btw) I'm outta here.