Bad_Dog
-
Posts
141 -
Joined
-
Local, I was 100% in agreement with your guide until I found a section where your guide turned into personal opinion rather than "good advice". I am speaking of the whole deceive argument which seems to be saying "Play Deceive how YOU want to play Deceive, screw the team". I would just like to see that part tweaked just a little in an effort to keep the peace on teams.
With all respect intended, I certainly am not meaning to be critical of your effort or opinion. I would love to point members of my sg to this guide, as we were just talking about this concept the other day. Frankly, the only issue that I have with the Deceive argument included in this guide is that I will have to re-debate reality versus an opinion after with sg members read it.
Allow me to show you what I mean:
Sample statements from the guide, (trying to maintain the context in which it was stated).
Quote:Some teams feel strongly about XP and each team has a different tolerance for confuse effects, much like other annoying or rogue-ish powers. In general, any player who wants to choose powers with confuse, knockback, phasing, etc. is choosing a SOLO power or, at best, a very situational team power. Spamming an unwanted power or effect is asking to be kicked. It is not an opinion, it's a reality of team play that varies from team to team.Originally Posted by Local_Man
I am a big fan and strong advocate of Deceive. There have been heated debates about Deceive on the Boards, and I have often participated.
...The debate over Deceive and Confuse has been going on as long as I have been reading these forums: Someone complains that he or she was kicked off a team or was criticized because a Mind controller used Confuse or an Illusion Controller used Deceive. (Recently, the same debate has come up for Plant Controllers and Seeds of Confusion.) Someone gives a sample build that excludes Deceive because the person doesn't like the XP loss. Someone else then responds, saying that Deceive actually increases XP rather than decreasing it, so the person critical of Deceive is clearly an ignorant buffoon who does not understand the real facts.
...I find that most people who complain about Deceive, don't fully understand how it works -- They see the description and have heard that confuse powers cause you to "lose XP," so they react to that. My opinion is that everyone should stop worrying about XP and simply look at the benefits of the power and how it fits into the player's playstyle. Is it fun? Does it provide a benefit that makes it worthwhile to take as a power? Personally, I find Deceive to be one of the most fun powers in the game.
Without a doubt, solo, it is a great power and I do love it. But I happen to be one of the people who disagree with you about it's usefulness to a team. I will freely admit that if I am tanking/herding, a player casting a confuse power (from Deceive through Seeds of Confusion) will be kicked if asked to stop and doesn't. It has nothing to do with his or her opinion of the usefulness or fun of the power, it is a fact that if I play 90 minutes with someone casting Deceive I am earning less xp than if I play 90 mins without a player casting Deceive. So a player has a choice, keep Deceive from going off or goodbye.
You had said this earlier about Radiation anchors:
The way I play or my opinion is not the reason to make the change. In the effort to make less friction on teams, I only ask that you encourage players to not get bent out of shape if asked to stop using Deceive, much like you did in this above paragraph about Radiation anchors. I would think there should probably be something in there along these lines.Quote:Originally Posted by Local_Man
Choosing your Anchor. Choosing an anchor and choosing when to cast RI, EF and LR is an important part of the strategy of Radiation. Know your team, and figure out which foes are likely to be the last to be defeated and where the debuff will do you and you team the most good.
- Many people complain about Radiation's anchor-based debuffs because of the problem of teammates killing the "anchor." The Rad debuffs add a green glow to the target that seems to subliminally say, "Hey guys! Kill me first!" You need to understand right up front - your team WILL kill off your "anchor," and usually before you want them to. It may be frustrating - get over it, and just re-cast the debuffs on the next soon-to-be-corpse. Some people recommend setting up a bind to identify the anchor, hoping that the team will pay attention. I have done that in the past, and don't bother anymore. Just re-cast.
"Due to the controversy over Deceive, team tolerance for confuse effects, and a spirit of team play it is probably a good idea to consult the team before using it as it can prevent disagreements or arguments among the team."
All in all, if you make no change, I still believe you created a very thorough guide and the amount of thought and hard work you spent on this shows when reading through it. For that my hat is off to you. And thank you for at least considering my thoughts. -
I like the "high back chair" and "high back bench" under the "chairs" category.
http://wiki.cohtitan.com/w/images//e...back_Bench.jpg
http://wiki.cohtitan.com/w/images//0...back_Chair.jpg
If you have a floor/level made from the solid block desks all but the back sticks up above the floor. Unlike the floor lamps, the above mentioned benches/chairs looks quite arcane for a wooden railing. The best thing about using the benches you dont need a ton of them to do a whole room. -
Quote:I doubt anyone sees this as a conspiracy. I believe that the committee was formed with the right intention, to get changes made. And I doubt anyone is seriously against the formation of a committee, because we all truly want to see changes made. It's the secrecy that's the issue, not the people or the committee per se. I'm sure they have an agenda of what they want to accomplish, but so far getting them to part with what's on the list is like impossible. Therefor, secrecy is breeding mistrust and a loss of faith.Originally Posted by Chant
ANY changes would be good at this point as far as I'm concerned. It would show that the developers realize that the community exists. If we don't like all the changes, we can still appeal directly to the devs or to the committee.
This talk of a "shadowy" making decisions for us is ridiculous. I would be concerned about it if the shadowy agency was making decisions regarding what food I ate, or as in the case in real life... how much of my money is going to be taken from me and spent on military spending. But it's just a base! A base that has for too long been forgotten and left behind, but still just a base. If this committe makes bad choices, we can deal with the consequences. But at least give them a chance to actually get SOMETHING done around here.
Is not hard to understand why people are against this thing on principal. It is hard to trust a person or a group when their intentions are unknown. As a committee formed to represent "all of us", all of us aren't feeling represented since there was and is no debate on the agenda as of this time.
We have seen past efforts on behalf of the players and we've seen dev interest come and go, all with no results. The fear here is that IF the agenda is too demanding or way off the mark, those in the position to say "yes" or "no" to changes will say "this is too much of a time investment for the benefit of too few players". If they blow this one, there may or may not be another chance in the future, but there will be like a hundred "I told you so" posts in this thread.Quote:Originally Posted by Chant
If this committe makes bad choices, we can deal with the consequences. But at least give them a chance to actually get SOMETHING done around here.
This is absolutely correct, in my opinion. This is the key ingredient in the solution and needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. What we have now is a list of things we want fixed and added without dev interest, so the key is a reason for them to care. By putting all the fixes and demands on the backburner and addressing the sg concept as a whole, we may find we get that whole list of wants and needs filled. They do not need a committee to tell them what they already know. They know there are a ton of fixes needed, that there is a ton of cool stuff they could add and they already know that the base editor is terrible, there is just no motivation to repair/replace any of this.Quote:Originally Posted by Chant
I still say that the main focus should be on reviving Super Groups in general, not just bases.
The devs need to give sg's some benefits, rewards, tangible reasons to have the player community interested in joining larger sg's. Since base raids are not the answer, we need to look into what the devs can give to supergroups that cause players to WANT to be in a larger sg. Things that aren't overly time intensive for the devs at the onset. Getting players into larger sg's makes bases important again. As long as players can make a 1-man storage facility and sg bases have no real benefit to players, then sg's are not important. If sg's are not important to players, there is no real reason the devs should take time away from other tasks to tinker with bases.
If the devs have a reason to invest resources into bases, then overtime, we will get more of what we want. -
Great stuff, I'd like to play that arc, lol. I particularly love the idea that there could be non-sg members on your team. What they would see is a sg doing a sg arc together. And if it's fun, reward-able, you have someone that sees first hand some of the benefits of being in a larger sg.
I think there are a lot of potential on this thread. Many great ideas and it doesn't seem that they are overly difficult to implement. Let's hope that this gets noticed and mulled over by those who make the decisions.
-
Quote:No offense taken, it was only my impression after completing the arc.Originally Posted by Dalghryn
I understand perfectly why Bad Dog makes the suggestions he makes. As the arc is written, both Statesman and Recluse seem to be overkill for the problem that's being addressed. That said, and with every bit of respect to Bad Dog, I'd suggest an alternative solution to replacing them with lower-level characters.
To me, the most interesting aspect of the arc (and what has the potential of making it unique rather than just 'another Nemesis plot' arc) is the fact that you've been presented with a situation that requires both Statesman and Recluse--CoX's two big dogs-- to help solve a crisis. Removing them and replacing them with anyone else removes what was the most intriguing aspect of the arc for me.
That said, Bad Dog is right in that, as it stands, the reasons for their being there just don't rise to the level one would expect. So, up the ante. Rework the text, dialogue and objectives in the three missions where they are involved so that any hero/villain of lesser calber stands a far greater risk of failure.
Just my thoughts. You'll find that the challenge with doing an arc is that you often get really good suggestions from different people that simply conflict. You have to pick a direction and go with it. If you try to incorporate every good idea, you'll drive yourself wacky.
I like the idea of "uping the ante" and that would give Statesman and Recluse a motive to be in the missions. I'd think it would have to be really important to both if they stay. As it stands it just doesn't seem "critical" enough.
So, thinking along the lines that Dalghryn proposed, here's a couple more random ideas for you to think about.
I'd go into the Custom Enemy Group editor and make an alternate Nemesis army. Maybe take some of the original Nemesis army then create several new characters. This alternate army would be for ambushes, bosses, etc. And the group that Statesman and Recluse are worried about.
Anyway, just a few random ideas I had that may help.
There are many references/story arcs in the game that address Lord Nemesis constructing automatons that can pass as NPC's. This gives you a lot of freedom to design a new army of robots - what they look like, and what powers Lord Nemesis has given them. You aren't really limited by them being just plain robots.
Maybe each new "automaton" is still a work in progress for Nemesis. There is a lvl 35-39 story arc where this is the case - he was still perfecting his creations when the hero intervenes. In that vain, maybe these robots are to replace heroes in Paragon City and Villains in Rogue Isles. That would give Statesman and Recluse a reason to help. Maybe each automaton has some flaws like speech, occasional fleeing from heroes or fighting against the normal Nemesis army occasionally, like their programming isn't complete.
As far as coloring the robots, if you were to replace the 5th Column Meks with the Vanguard HVAS you'd be able to color it and end up with an awesome looking and deadly Nemesis killing machine. Paragon Police also has a robotic unit, the name escapes me at the moment, but it can also be colored somewhat as I recall.
The 5th Column Meks, in general, aren't really scary enough in my opinion and are pretty limited on powers, so if you change them to HVAS, then I'd make sure there is a helpful hero or villain available for each mission where a player must defeat one. I would guess that most people solo in AE, so I would think it best to accommodate solo squishies. Like hostages to rescue that aren't a mission objective, otherwise, squishies may not be able to tackle a HVAS. It also doesn't unnecessarily hinder those braver souls that want to, (or can), take down an HVAS without help. -
Quote:First, I'd like to say how I rate. I feel that a mission really, really has to go out of its way to be terrible. Generally, I see all arcs as a default "4" +/- 1. All arcs in MA I consider works in progress, (much like art), and I feel its helpful to me when people objectively note suggestions for improvement. So in that vain, I offer only constructive suggestions and my review should not be taken for criticizism, as it is only meant at helping improve an arc.Originally Posted by Bubbawheat
Bronze Level Members:
(play your first arc and leave feedback)
Arc of the week:
Week #1
11-02-10 thru 11-08-10
started with: 10 plays and 4 stars
ended with:
author: Necrotech_Master
arc ID: 366083
arc name: Another Nemesis Plot?
arc lvl range: 45+
arc difficulty: medium (has a few AV/EBs in it but i supplied 1-2 allies in the mishs to give aid)
arc length: 5 mishs, very long
OVERALL:
* * * *
Nothing wrong with the story but I would change the Satesman/Recluse involvement with lesser EB/Heroes/Villians and maybe custom color the robots, if possible. Using Lord Nemesis is fine and if thats the case, I'd see if you couldn't color the robots a little more toward the gold/bronze colors to suggest Nemesis alterations.
The map lengths were great, none too long but the third mission and that can be fixed by swapping that slot with the fifth slot. If you swap those maps, I'd put Lord Nemesis in the room with the giant robot.
MISSION SUGGESTIONS:
Mission 1: Statesman seems out of place and really not needed. Might I suggest some lower echelon hero or maybe just a scientist NPC that gives you a clue? Seems to me Statesman would have more important things to do then sniff around bases to solve mysteries.
Mission 2: The mission text in the nav bar should probably just state "Defeat All Enemies in Base" rather than a series of tasks. It would be easier for the player.
Mission 3: Same as Mission 2. If it's a "Defeat All" the list of tasks is not necessary. This mission is great as a finale mission but a little long for a mid-arc mission. I'd suggest making it the last mission in your arc.
Mission 4: Lord Recluse seems out of place, especially whens its not the last mission. I would think Dr. Aeon would be a better fit.
Mission 5: I would make this mission 3 and move mission 3 here. Take out the flyer as it is more or less just in the way and the meks, titans and nemesis all spawned right near it. -
Quote:Love this.Originally Posted by Shadestorm
Now here's one I hadn't thought of. The tech is certainly there as evidenced by kheldian void spawns.
Street sweeping is commonly less done than door missions, right? BUT there's tons of area in multiple zones with spawns of like everything. The kheldian systems are capable of spawning in world zones as well as doors... I need to think on this more, but perhaps some system that encourages/directs the SG group to street sweep specific zones with some event triggers. You could use the new Zowie tech, world ambushes, and Kheldian style mob replacement to design series of chained events that pop in random spots in random zones and THAT would be the essence of the SG mission computer. So your SG missions are actually chained series of zone tasks. As long as that specific SG mission or story arc is in effect, it could still leverage mob replacement tech for members of the SG in their personal missions for the sake of flavor/immersion.
Think like you're solo or duo in SG mode, and your SG is currently participating in some sort of CoT story via the mission computer. So perhaps the boss you need to interrogate for the SG's next clue would zone pop, or replace a mob in a door mission you're already doing, or whatever.
Thus, the SG's story sort of works in parallel with any of the player's personal stories. You might be mesmerized by the television, but if there's a group of assassins that's been hired to take out members of your group, they might show up in your arc, or in the world, or whatever.
...
Finally, these random pops would only happen in SG mode, and would follow the "lockout" TF rule, so if you're in a PUG that doesn't want to deal with your random minion adds you have the option of turning off your SG gain and not incurring potential SG risk. If you're in a TF or SF they also don't happen because of the contained nature and difficulty of those tasks.
Or another option, the supergroup leader can select an enemy group as your sg's "nemesis" - the group bent on destroying your sg. This "nemesis" group can randomly spawn, attempting to thwart your missions, like you pointed out, just like Voids, Crystals and Quantums will spawn if you have a Kheld on your team. Of course, also like you pointed out, PUG's wont like it, task forces and zone events should suppress it, etc. so maybe it's only limited to teams where there are more than one sg member on a team lead by a sg member or sg only missions. And obviously, the sg would only be able to choose enemy groups that are currently setup to spawn at any level. Having an ambush of Skulls would be silly to a team of lvl 50's. Off hand I can think of groups like Rikti (the invasion flavor), Zombies, Arachnos, Paragon Police (villian side), that are already setup 1-50. I'm sure there are more.
Maybe a custom enemy group you created for AE?
Maybe if your groups "nemesis" was Rikti, for example, every Rikti mission by the sg (teams with at least duo sg members) would cause the mission to be harder? Ambushes, bosses, anything really.
Maybe going into a zone where your enemy has a significant presence is a bad idea. For instance, for some reason your supergroup team got a mission in Rikti War Zone, there should be considerable danger for your group if your nemesis is the Rikti. Maybe an ambush for every neighborhood you enter?
And how cool would it be to complete some type of "special" sg mission from the sg computer against your nemesis and have it spawn a zone invasion?
What fun this could be! I like the idea that the sg could get random clues and once you could decode or figure them out it unlocked a special sg mission of some kind. Of course sg clues should drop with members just doing their normal game play but with some time and/or thinking maybe the group could connect the dots and unlock the mystery mission.Quote:Originally Posted by Shadestorm
Taking it further, what if the details weren't announced to the SG. You've got a chain of events that all deliver clues, but there's never a mission entry for the players so they don't have a checklist of "what to do next" but sort of figure it out organically by reading the clues, or the clue synopsis at the SG computer. Thus, these stories would play out over longer stretches of time in parallel with anything the SG was already doing.
I had another thought after reading your post. What if they borrowed the missions from Sunstorm and Shadowstar and used them as a basis for sg missions from the sg computer. I honestly doubt that these are being played very much, if at all and they both have arcs unlocked every 5 levels from 1 - 50. So depending on the level of your team, let's say the leader is 37, then the arc offered by the computer would be 2 arc's 35-40. That would give some freshness to content in the computer. -
The rating system and the Hall of Fame we currently have is about as fair as the mafia supervising election results. This is only my opinion, but I feel that the only way to re-focus on quality in AE would be to scrap the entire Hall of Fame idea along with the current rating system. A) it's not working as intended and b) it can and has been abused for or against arcs or players by other players and c) it has almost nothing to do with quality. The Devs Choice can stay, that is not being run unfairly.
- What we need is to have the devs play more arcs and while we don't necessarily need monthly additions to DC, what we could use is a "Featured" category. They randomly select missions marked as "final" and if they liked it, it goes to featured for a month. If they really, really like it, then it goes to Devs Choice and stays there.
- If that happens, then there should be tabs created like "Devs Choice" and "Featured" and "Past Favorites" (where past featured arcs go).
Featured = non-crap, non-farm, worth playing
Past Featured = a ton of arcs for you to play that are decent and non-farms
Dev's Choice = great!- The main list of arcs shouldn't be cluttered by the first few pages being all HoF and DC arcs like we have now. The code should track the average number of monthly (or weekly) plays. It might be a good way to do the default sort of the current list of arcs: Avg # of plays + "final" setting.
This way a more or less dynamic "hot list" is always on top when you log in. You made a new arc and a bunch of friends tried it out? Expect it to make the front page next month. You have an arc from a year ago with a ton of plays, it may be on the front page for quite a while. So while it may be easy to get on the front page for a month, it should also take considerable effort to keep it there, the good ones should end up with more plays. And this dynamic list should present you with different choices each time you visit.
- It would be nice if the first page could be dev monitored and if they aren't going to penalize an obvious farm mission that shows up on the list, then at least they should be flagged so they won't show up. Or better yet farmers themselves should just not flag their farms as "final".
Anyway, if the way arcs are presented is more dynamic, there might actually be a reason to frequent AE. In any case, I just thought I'd throw my idea out there for discussion. -
Quote:Thanks Wrong Number, I'll be glad to join.Originally Posted by Wrong_Number
Thanks for catching this Cap. The MA Arc Finder channel was founded by me the week before MA went live on the servers. It is intended as a cross server MA channel for MA related help, arc promotion and just a place for MA authors/players to hang out. We have last time I checked over 400 members in the channel. So, please join up, we'd love to have you!
WN
-
Quote:If I am understanding your intention here then yes, that's what I was getting at. As long as there is base rent or a base to build then prestige is still necessary, but the prestige system can be abused in an effort to obtain rewards. So, like you said, 'prestige should be a sg's inf and then merits the rewards'.Originally Posted by Shadestorm
SG merits:
This doesn't really functionally differentiate itself from prestige outside of the conversion rate. Sure, you've got an anemic rate of gain due to the drop chance, but it doesn't necessarily solve the question of the prestige economy being a currency with no sinks...
...Perhaps a better parallel to take a nod from would be the A-Merit system, or even the standard reward merit system. Here you're awarded merits for difficult or time consuming tasks rather than any task at all.
The current reward merits or A-merit systems can certainly be used as a template. I could see that instead of completing a Sister Psyche tf in IP and getting 50 personal merits, maybe you do Sister Psyche (with the sg) from the sg computer. You get 50 merits and the sg is rewarded X merits.
I was just throwing another option on the table for discussion where teaming with the sg is rewarded for members as well as beneficial for the group.
No disagreement here, I think that is a wise idea. For me personally, I feel the radio missions are way too easy. If there is going to be a reward attached to missions like these then maybe the difficulty slider has no effect. Maybe all missions that are "Defeat So-N-So" are missions where the bosses are either bosses or elite bosses - never Lt's and never -1.Quote:Originally Posted by Shadestorm
SG computer Safeguard/Mayhem:
I sort of went here in the original SG tip system, but I think the trick here would be taking those mission types and upping the challenge level. Short of redesigning the whole mission, there are multiple ways you could scale the content. Allow scaling of lower level maps to higher level mobs for instance, or adjust the timer and ambush functions to present a greater challenge in these missions. The point here would be creating SG missions that are quite a bit tougher than your standard safeguard/mayhem.
I like your idea for both timer and ambushes, but what if those and a handful of other "additions" were just randomly selected unannounced additions to any mission played by the group? Random elements can make running the same things over and over more interesting. -
Quote:Thanks! If there is interest on Protector I would host a spin off group for a regular play day, if there already isn't one.Originally Posted by Bubbawheat
Your idea also sounds a lot like the "MA Arc Finder" Channel as well as the MA Superteam that runs on Triumph every Saturday noon EST. You're welcome to use the MA Arc Finder to run a spin-off superteam on Protector, or you could also join us on Triumph. I personally don't have a presence on Protector, but most MA arcs with a coherent story are designed to solo. You're welcome to join here if you would like.
I'll chip in reviews here as I run the "arc the week".
-
Quote:I actually began playing in CoH Beta, my first foray onto the forums was May '05. My post count should tell you how frequently I have been here since then. So, I'm sure there's a lot of things I don't know about here. All that aside, I have been spending a lot more time here lately.Originally Posted by MrCaptainMan
Reading your thread on the protector forum made me realise that there may be a lot of people who don't know about the MA Arc Finder Channel. I was also slightly dismayed to see that you only recently realised there was an AE specific forum despite having a May 2005 start date
I might go post a head-s up on all the server forums...
Eco.
I do think that joining that global channel is good idea. Thanks for the suggestion. -
Quote:When I posted this idea I hadn't realized there were already some similar ideas floating around, so I thought of a way to start something like this and maybe eventually it would be across servers.Originally Posted by Residentx10
No reasoning just questions. When I saw Protector I wondered if you wanted only Protector People.
I believe MrCaptainMan has a good idea, there is already a channel for AE so I'm thinking that its a good idea to join that global channel then maybe announce the Protector play time on the day we run missions and see how that goes.
There is another thread on the forums: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=243333 that is reviewing arcs, that might be a place to hang out and avoid re-inventing the wheel and duplicating efforts. -
Quote:What's your reasoning, Resident? Your opinion isn't necessarily wrong, there's no idea in that post to explain why you think it shouldn't merge.Originally Posted by Residentx10
Is this group only for Protector. Then you shouldn't merge.
I'm on Protector and I'd like to have a regular group to do AE Missions, but there really isn't any reason I can think of why other people on other servers couldn't follow the same guidelines. (play arcs, post reviews in the forums, etc.) If that's the case, why not have everyone under the same umbrella and share knowledge, tips, etc? Just because others on other servers are interested, I won't feel a need to go over to Pinnacle or Infinity to run missions. -
It's weird this thread was started one day before mine and we were both thinking along the same lines.
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=243441
I'm wondering if we should combine efforts?
Where this idea had been forum focused I was thinking more from in-game focus, but the idea is about the same. Players play arcs and provide feedback. -
Quote:Good idea! I'll have to spend more time looking through those sites, I didn't know those existed.Originally Posted by Stalemate
There are already some global resources for AE architects to benefit from, such as http://cohmissionreview.com/, and a global channel whose-name-I-forget-right-now-but-have-on-a-tab-so-I'll-update-it-here-later. (MA?)
If we're doing this only for Protector, then you may want to check out Protector Fiction to see if your project might not benefit from an already established base.
Maybe I'm just over looking it, but is there a forum for AE? <== (nvm, I found it. :P) -
Quote:Honestly, I'd like to see it as a global thing. I may post this idea in an AE forum for all servers if people more or less like the idea.Originally Posted by Zaloopa
This sounds like a really good idea, but I think it should be a global thing, not just Protector. But even if you make it global you could still organize stuff on protector like you suggested, and have others who run things on their own respective servers, that way any arcs that generate buzz on the chat channel would find a larger audience.
Even better if you have a full on committee attached to it, kinda like the PVP committee and I think a base building committee is starting now. Except you'd have a specific dev you could contact, unlike PVP and bases. Maybe you could even work out a deal with Dr. Aeon where the committee could make dev choice recommendations to him. Unless there is already a MA committee I don't know about, if so disregard this whole paragraph. -
Here's another idea. Let's suppose supergroups earned "Supergroup Merits".
Merits like the Hero/Villian Merits are so much harder to abuse than a system like sg prestige which can be bought and is earned for everything you defeat in sg mode. So I was thinking a system where items unlocked, containers upgraded, or member rewards should have their "counter" if unlocked or their own "currency" if it is purchasable, which sg merits could be used for in whichever way works better. Then to implement a system like this only 3 real issues need to be addressed. What would be upgradable/purchasable, what cost/levels of merits unlock/purchasing happens, and how players gain them.
We've had some good ideas on things to unlock/purchase so I'll skip that in this post.
For anyone who hasn't noticed there's a new supergroup badge added with i18 for completing the Cathedral of Pain 100 times. Completing CoP 100 times isn't anything a 1-man sg is likely to achieve, and it is still a hard yet achievable badge for larger sg's that won't happen quickly. It is a lot of CoP trials to run and this is the sort of benchmark that should be used for "sg merits". To me that's reasonable. Any merits earned should still promote something of a time investment for the group to achieve and yet something for a 1-man group that is more or less an extremely distant but unlikely possibility.
So how would sg members get merits? I think they should randomly drop as often as uncommon salvage does with the following differences. Any merits that drop are dropped for the group not for the individual. One person soloing or on a team without sg members would earn 1 merit for a drop but it could exponentially grow depending on the number of sg members on your team. An 8 man team may be able to get them to drop maybe dozens at a time. If you take the avenue of uncommon random drops like this, then it does not require players to modify their normal game play and it takes some of the luster away from farming for sg merits. Farming solo would take a very long time and merit farming with 8 sg members would be rather impractical for most, if not all, sg's. In any case, if that system is easier to implement than adding sg missions to the sg computer than maybe thats a better road to take.
As a side note to a post earlier. If the devs wanted to easily add missions to the sg computer they don't necessarily have to invent new missions. Seems to me they could just take the police band radio missions and apply them to the sg computer. All they would have to do is eliminate the bank mission and add a random enemy and zone appropriate to the level for the team. You aren't really taking anything away from players running normal radio missions to do this. Its another avenue to play the same content, except it would require only sg members on the team to run. -
So I have been thinking about this subject for a while:
What can we as players do that -
1) Can make AE more fun
2) encourage more players to use it
3) Reward those talented individuals that are producing some great stuff in AE.
So the premise of my idea revolves around the concept of having a group that more or less seeks out the quality and/or fun. This is the details how I thought it might work.
Who Can Join?
The group is open to anyone on Protector, whether you construct story arcs, want to learn or just plain enjoy playing the missions. Farmers are to be shunned, lol.Selecting Leaders
A chat channel would be created and all members are encouraged to join the channel. Anyone who has 3 live story arcs automatically becomes "eligible" to become a moderator/leader and several should be selected based on their expressing genuine desire to improve AE arcs, reward creative designers, enjoy playing non-farming AE arcs, or even just great as organizing. I see no reason to make this a one-man leadership show, the more people pulling in the same direction the better.When and Where?
I would vote for Saturday, 1pm Central time as it makes it 11am Pacific and 2pm Eastern. This seems to be a decent compromise for a Saturday lunch time activity. The group would meet on Protector server, obviously. That being said, I see no reason why players on other servers should be excluded, if they have someone as a leader on their server and the players to run missions, they certainly should share in our endeavor.Leader Responsibility
On Saturday, a channel mod/leader would group the players together and at least 2 story arcs should be chosen. One arc should be either long or very long and the other should be anything less than long. How the two arcs are selected is up to the leader of the group, whether he takes suggestions or randomly picks arcs, it really shouldn't matter.
Although members should be committed to two missions, of course that not the limit. If players want to continue after that they can, but at least having a commitment to be in for two isn't asking alot. Of course, if more than 8 show up another mod/leader should start another team and divide up the members between the teams.
A thread should be created on the the first Saturday run and the first post should be a numerical list of all arcs run and the author. After that has been completed, once the Saturday arcs are done for the day, team leader(s) should post a message on the thread with a quick one or two sentence (minimum) of the arcs played, the author, and the arc numbers. This way anyone following the thread on the forums can always find decent missions to play. The numerical list in the original post would be there so the leaders aren't un-intentionally repeating arcs.Mission Criteria
The criteria of the missions selected should be 1) absolutely no farms, 2) anything less that a certain vote total. Just to pick a number for no real reason let's just say it's less than 500 votes.Member Responsibility
The responsibility of individual members of the group should be1) If you show up on Saturday to play, you need to agree to do 2 arcs,
If we want to encourage players to get better, add something they overlooked or reward great architects, then comments are important. Remember, the arc creators spent alot of time on arcs and they enjoy getting feedback. You aren't writing a manifesto so it's not going to be any more than a line or two to give some honest critique - how you felt, constructive criticism, ideas for tweak, bugs caught, etc... All meant in a positive manner.
2) to vote honestly on every arc completed during group play and,
3) comments are a requirement for completed arcs.Community
Another benefit of the chat channel is that players will be able to converse/question others who are actually interested in making great missions or just enjoy playing them. Who knows you may find great ideas you never thought of, or someone knows a trick that you did not. Need advice or love mentoring? Here's your chance.Personal Arcs
I am in favor of members submitting their own arcs for critique oon Saturdays, but there needs to be a system where players subjected to doing the same guys missions over and over, it rather defeats the purpose of seeking out the good stuff in AE if we are stuck on one arc. All in all, I see no reason why players couldn't test or help others in the community to tweak their arcs, spot bugs, or just plain help others get better. And that can happen at any time during the week.
Anyway, that's the idea I thought might actually work. I, for one, enjoy making arcs and what I think I enjoy more than that is that rare occasion where I stumble across one that's just plain awesome. As AE is now, those of us who make arcs have no real soundboard, no real shot at getting 999+ votes, or anyway to spotlight those players we come across that are talented. Conversely I hate picking an arc and discover its just another of the bazillion farm missions. So, this system might make it a win-win-win for players, arc designers, and quality inside AE.
So, anyone have any thoughts on this? -
I love this tool, great job!
FYI - I don't know if its' been mentioned but it looks like we are missing the newest Brickstown badges. If I remember correctly, (I installed it last night), Brickstown only listed 4 badges. -
Not a bad idea, but like Impish suggested, a lack of grand ideas are not the issue. Since seeing the game from CoH beta until today, I've seen sg's go from optional at the beginning to "big deal" and "highly encouraged" with CoV release, until now coming full circle back to optional again.
Throughout that roller coaster of sg interest we find tons and tons of ideas on the forums to make sg bases awesome, and frankly many of them are just plain needed. But, once the virtual wheels fell off the Cathedral of Pain cart and it was removed from the game, base interest and sg support changed for devs. Since then, player interest in sg's can be directly linked to developer interest. The devs have a lack of interest and now it is reflected in the game.
As I believe your intention is generally a serious attempt at generating something workable that might grab some dev interest. I wish to suggest encouraging this discussion to move a little more toward the conservative arena. Making this a thread that isn't asking for much other than "throw us a bone here". In that vain, I believe we should try to encourage potential fixes/solutions to:
- be a limited time invested for the part of the devs.
- and hopefully, with the focus of returning players to sg's.
I think we are pretty much all in agreement that interest in sg's could be accomplished by giving benefits to members. If players see a real benefit to being in a super-group where larger is better then I think players will naturally gravitate toward sg's. Which then should generate more dev interest and maybe we can finally get bases some cool useful features.
For example, regardless of what any else thinks, that idea of expanding storage for sg members is pure gold and I can't possibly see how that could be a time consuming task for the devs. My main can carry over 80 salvage but my sg vault holds 50, so it makes a lot of sense to be able to earn a larger vault by sg play. Once your group earns a larger vault, it would be something to take into consideration if you wanted to leave that group. Its ideas like that that seem very easy to implement and may not seem particularly amazing to others, but chain a few more of these types of ideas together and sg's will be important again.
On a semi-related note, there is another thread going around speaking about the "base building committee" being formed. My thoughts after reading the semi-secret intent by the organizers and the response by Ocho left me very un-impressed that this will accomplish anything. The few details we know offered by the players who are organizing this committee have suggested forming a list of base features/fixes and holding contests. Which is exactly why it isn't going to work. By the way, Ocho responded by being 100% non-committal other than stating that he supports players forming a committee.
Why is that relevant here? The problem isn't the bases, nor is it a lack of player interest in base building, it is supergroups. That committee can hold all the contests they want, and it may lure a few players to take a shot at building a cool looking base, but at the end of the day it did not move the ball forward. You can give a list of features/fixes to the devs but without sg's being anything remotely important to the players, why should the devs do anymore than just applaud the winners of the base building contests? In all fairness to the devs, I can totally understand why working on things like i19 and i20 would rank higher on their list of priorities. If it's not important to a significant population of players, you can be sure they won't prioritize much time to be spent on it.
Don't get me wrong, this is not criticism of your post, Shadestorm. I do enjoy reading your posts. They are easy to support, as they are well thought out and I happen to agree with your way of thinking. My fear is that this thread becomes just another thread that will be chalked up as a list of features that will never see the light of day. -
Quote:If you read MasterBlades post of the Patch Notes for the auto-complete feature you will see there is no "strictly use for bugs caveat", therefore it was provided to players to use as we please within the stated restrictions. I was not in error.Originally Posted by Frost
Half right. Missions that require simultaneous clicking, missions where you can't find the last item or enemy yes. Everything else no.
The auto-complete feature was not *intended* to let people drop annoying missions or things that were too time consuming. It was a side effect, one they knew about but it was NOT it's intended use.
You're correct when you say there's no right or wrong way to use it in that the auto-complete police won't come running if you drop a mission that isn't bugged. But you can't argue intent like you were and if you use it to drop an annoying mission you risk not having it when you get a truly bugged and impassable mission. -
Quote:I'll take a shot at answering your question since no one else has. I haven't read up on this much so I can only rely on what a couple friends and I found when we tested one afternoon.Originally Posted by Sir_Lionheart
Just curious to know if ticket drops are affected by team size, like Inf and recipe/salvage drops. I always assumed it was, but was recently told that players get the same number of tickets regardless of how many on the team.
Can anyone confirm? Thanks in advance.
If you are solo - you can run the same mission repeatedly and you will get a different number of tickets each time.
If you are on a team - each member of the team will end up with a different amount of tickets earned on the map.
Now, whether you are getting more tickets with more players I cannot say for sure. It's been a while since we did that test, but if a remember correctly, we did not notice much of a difference in solo vs team. There is at least evidence to support that each player is just getting a random shot at tickets. -
Quote:There is no "strictly speaking" reasoning behind the ability to auto complete.Originally Posted by Lothic
People sometimes forget the only reason the Devs gave us the ability to auto-complete missions a couple of years ago was as a means to get past broken/bugged missions on our own without having to call for a GM to help us. Strictly speaking no one should be auto-completing missions just because they "want" to.
In 78 months of playing I've only had maybe 3 missions that were bugged enough that I needed to use the auto-complete feature to finish them. If the Devs decided to put restrictions on a few missions to make them "non-auto-completable" it wouldn't really bother me in the least.
Yes, it was stated by devs that the feature was there to allow teams to auto-complete a mission if it were bugged. No, it was not the sole purpose.
As most people do not read the forums, we can safely assume that if their intention was "solely for bugs" then there would be text/popups/reminders in-game that the feature is solely for bugged missions. There is no such text in-game that suggests that it is a feature for bugs.
I read what was posted when it was released and there was a concern that people would just auto-complete every mission all the way to 50. So it was set to 7 days originally, then I'm sure the data mining reflected that people were not over using it, it was eventually lowered to 3 days.
From the day it was implemented people have been using to skip annoying missions, missions to hard to solo, missions that require simultaneous clicking by more players than you have on your team, missions that are too time consuming, and missions where you just cannot find the last item or enemy. These were also its' intended purpose.
From the day it was released many of us also use it at level 5 to get the bank mission so we can get our temp jet pack. Get your radio, do 2 radio missions, auto-complete the 3rd, bank mish.
There is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to this feature. Yes, it was given to us to address a problem (bugged missions), but it was constructed and presented to us in a multiple-use fashion and will continue to be used that way. Any potential abuse of the system is buffered by the three day timeout. -
I don't think you and I are too far off on the concept. By giving rewards or benefits to members will attract players to be in sg's. Exactly how that potentially could play out wouldn't matter to me, whether its buffs or upgrades, I like the concept. And I do like the idea of upgrading personal storage as a sg reward.
I personally know someone who bought a few billion inf online and bam! instant 1-man sg base with all the storage. Like I said earlier I see no reason to punish anyone who chooses to do a 1-man storage facility, but the rewards/upgrades shouldn't be anything a 1-man sg should be able obtain on his own or at least in any sense of the term "in the near future". So the Mission Computer offering a system for earning rewards/upgrades via sg tip missions or sg task forces could provide that buffer. It seems more logical than using sg prestige as the benchmark as prestige can be bought with inf and the game seems to have exploded with inf in recent years.
As far as buffs go, it doesn't necessarily penalize soloists, but it does reward sg membership. I am in a medium-large sg and most of my week is soloing. The weekend is my teaming, task force days as I have more time to do so. Could the system work without buffs? Yes. Would buffs attract more players to sg's? Definately.
Empowerment Stations are more or less sg buffs anyway, but if my sg is any representation of the general population of sg's, then hardly anyone is using the empowerment stations. If handing out buffs in general cause the devs some hesitation then there is always the option to remove the Empowerment Stations and have those buffs dished out as temp powers. Maybe earning each type of buff for different achievements and to keep the abuse lower it could be tweaked to keep the buff effect for an hour, but maybe you could only use it once every two hours like the Mission TP power. Or maybe it's a tiered system - it lasts for 10 mins when you first earn it, by further sg achievements you could work it up to an hour? I could see this being very useful for larger SG's attempting the Cathedral of Pain on their own, or sg only task forces, which we do occasionally.