Chase_Arcanum
-
Posts
1706 -
Joined
-
Quote:...not to mention the excellent use of positioning. You've got a great eye for capturing a pose or using poses in ways I've never thought of. I've only had a chance to skim right now, but I was thoroughly impressed.Originally Posted by Protean
As someone who has an appreciation for creative use of our costume creator I really enjoy looking through these both for the character concepts as well as the settings and choice of shots/subject matter you've put together.
Keep up the good work. -
Quote:1) Look at the sheer number of missions added just prior to the Incarnates, and look at the content provided in any of the prior years. Yes, they frontloaded a bunch of it, and much of it is gated for content, but they really did drop a boatload of content at non-incarnate stuff before focusing on Incarnates. About the closest you can come in comparison is counting the "police radio" insta-stories, which tips have several orders of magnitude improvement on.Originally Posted by Anchor
November is when Issue 19 came out, and that's when the Incarnate push began. The additions before that were in August, when Going Rogue came out, and that was not free. I've been here seven years and I think I've got a handle on the pace at which Paragon works. Issue 20.5 might be out by this August, but Issue 21 and whatever it holds will not be done and released in two months, too. If we're lucky, maybe October-November. That means it will probably be at a year or more between releases of free non-Incarnate-focused content.
2) Using Issue 19 as the start of the "endgame system" isn't really very accurate. While the SUBJECT MATTER was "Incarnates," it was presented in content that was much more CoH-standard (essentially just solo quests and task forces-- there were also two lower-level story arcs as well). If your gripe is that you don't like the incarnate plot and would prefer content that didn't deal with the near-godlike power at the level cap, you'd have a valid point.
If your gripe was about introducing new GAME MECHANICS and the endgame "raid" trial system, then the clock starts April 5, 2011... not even two months ago. (and that issue, too, had two non-incarnate lower-level task/strike forces)
You'd have to be in the came of everything "goatee universe" is a waste of resources (I've heard as much from many people) and, thus, all Incarnate stuff (so far Praetoria-related) is by default, then you may count the August release of going rogue as your starting point.
3) Rethink your timetable. The "point fives" didn't really slow the "3 issues/year" setup for CoH MUCH:
Issue 18: August 17, 2010
Issue 19: November 30, 2010.
Issue 19.5: February 1, 2011
Issue 20: April 5, 2011
Issue 20.5: -- A mid-June release would be comparable with the schedule AND the announcement schedule they used for 19.5
Issue 21: -- A mid-August release would be comparable with the schedule. -
Quote:Welcome back.Originally Posted by SlackTech
I should clarify something - I know there will be new incarnate costume pieces etc in 20.5 - these are still linked to the incarnate system. So when I say that the devs are devoting resources to trials/raids, it's because it's all tied up in that overarching system.
And I'm not trying to be argumentative, even though it might seem that way.
And from someone else who was very wary of trials, I'll say you might be pleasantly surprised.
They aren't really comparable to "raids" in other games, and the devs seemed to be true to the "lite" approach that's served them well in other parts of the game (crafting-lite, market-lite, raid-lite). Most of the benefit from incarnatedom lies in the lowest-hanging fruit, so casuals can get a sizable chunk of awesome with minimal effort.
I'm not a fan of level-locking costumes, but the incarnate pieces seem so distinctive and stylized that they don't really come across as something that would be character-defining. As a new player, I'd be more upset at the costume locks on things like Samurai armor vet reward or trenchcoats than I would be about the Incarnate pieces. Those are more character-defining elements that you might want from level 1. Heck, I'd even have more issue with the "unlocked" weapon items. If I wanted a hero whose powers manifest from his magical Rularuu sword, I don't want to have to use a placeholder for X levels until I unlock it. These pieces? Maybe its just because I'm hard pressed to figure out how and why to use any of them, but I can live with the wait. They're trophies.
Anyway, that's probably a topic for a different thread. Glad to see you and the missus are back. Good to have you around. Have fun. -
Quote:C'Mon, EmperorSteele, you should know by now that, if anything, Venture's something of an expert on all things shoddy. Its kinda his thing.Originally Posted by EmperorSteele
Shoddy workmanship? Like that entire website that hasn't been updated in 6 years? You're using THAT to support your argument? Really?
C'Mon Venture, you can do better than that. Also, facts don't stop being facts just because you don't believe in them.
-
The lack of purples and shards are something Architects should take note of.
I see MANY more arcs for the 50's range-- and that's not going to be a big part of the audience anymore. The lack of possible purple drops and shards make it an impractical use of time.
I've been running more level 25-40 story focused Architect arc lately. The market for salvage in this range is rather insane, so having a large share of tickets for uncommons and rares is very handy. The sample of stories (that I haven't done)for those ranges is a tad smaller than I'd expected, but there are plenty of good story-focused gems.
As for XP and leveling... I have no issues with the nerfs. I run these stories for variety and story, not for a mad dash to Incarnatedom. I'd be fine with no XP or a kind of "patrol XP" system that limited the amount of XP earned via Architect or many other limitations if the system was still being abused. -
Quote:But can you turn back time?Originally Posted by ChaosAngelGeno
"When Anti-Matter reaches certain health thresholds, he locally freezes time and space and retreats to a generator. When he reaches the generator, the freeze breaks, but he begins healing rapidly as he channels energy out of the reactors and through his body. The healing can be interrupted by destroying the four terminals at the base of the generator--or if he fully recovers."
Dammit, I wanted to stop the flow of time! -
Quote:Just imagine a realtor trying to put a positive spin while selling those condos....Originally Posted by Melancton
So if the zone is populated solely with Buffy Alumni, then I guess multiple darknesses are possible. Otherwise, it is just too contrary to human nature for me.
-
To be honest, I enjoy fighting fewer tougher foes rather than the huge mobs.
I just I couldn't get a straight answer if higher-than-level-50 minions had better shard drop rates than level 50 minions. I tried a few tests, and just found better rewards running against lots-o-50's. If I hadn't done that, I probably wouldn't have a tier 4 alpha now.
Now that I do, I'll probably reset things to see what I can run on +4 x? on my MA/SR scrapper. -
Quote:My MA/SR scrapper only has tier-three incarnate slots. Without using Lore she can still solo the pylons... probably not fast enough to take them all down (I haven't tried). My wife and I can duo GM's on characters with only the Alpha slot equipped-- We haven't tried Lusca yet, but we did take down both Jack and Eochai when they were fighting one another.Originally Posted by VoodooGirl
At this point, have you considered solo'ing the Rikti Mothership?
I ran that scrapper at +1 x 8 and usually don't need to pause at all between mobs. At +2 x 8, I'm using inspirations and may need to take a knee on occasion. Aside from the caltrop hell of huge mobs of Knives of Artimes, I'm not encountering issues. -
Quote:Not disagreeing with you, but these things are learned over time, prioritized, and have tradeoffs.Originally Posted by reiella
And having an economical server model is desirable regardless of population levels. Although you can argue it's less important when you are making more currency per concurrent user. I feel it's still something that should be optimized for
.
(assuming that its safe to at least use NCSoft offerings in comparisons)
Guild Wars , with its buy-once / play-forever model, for example needed an insanely lean model that really minimized communication.
Tabula Rasa, with its near-FPS system that had rapid mobility and short low-rooting animations, on the other hand, needed more frequent mapping updates to keep things in sync. They traded off the extra data requirement for a specific kind of gameplay value.
City of Heroes, which came earlier in MMO history, started with an independent studio's initial foray into the field, and had some elements that took it beyond the previous generation's tradeoffs, while making some of those same tradeoffs impossible.
All three are very different beasts.
There was a game that, in beta, tried to do away with targeting a foe. You'd hit whoever was in the range of your sword-swing. Period. Worked fine in alpha tests, but betas quickly showed that too much could happen between updates for remote users to have a playable system. When they increased the positioning data communication, they had to reduce the number of people tracked... so they instead started tracking CLOSE people much more frequently and accurately than DISTANT people, causing you to see people skipping and warping in the background.
Eventually, they reached a compromise that reduced the # of people per region displayed... but not as far as previously, reduced the threshold of tracking at a distance, increased it locally, AND added a targeting reticle that would always be considered within range if they were within range on the client when that player started the attack (making it a less-noticeable problem as at least SOMEONE would be hit)
--
Its much the same for customization of elements. Do you prioritize expandability (and have a block of data that can handle more than what you're currently communicating) or flexibility? Do you have to send each color hex value, or can you just say color "2" from a more limited selection? Do you send all the data for the face sliders when you first communicate a model to the user (while they're well out of view) or only send the basics initially and do another pass with more detail if/when the person gets within close enough visible range to matter? Do you send the full stats of a custom item when the item is displayed, when inventory is opened, or after a user specifically clicks "examine?" Sending it on 'examine' can reduce load, but put a longer wait on the user. Will examining have to take place during critical gameplay moments? Is it better just to drop the extremely-custom-intem model and perhaps just have "low-med-high" qualities for a single item? That way you could have all the stats precached in the client files and only send the item ID without the stats data.
All of that varies with each game. Heck, some games PATENT their data models so competitors can't (in theory) use the same solution they used. That makes some systems more data bloated than others, and thus, more costly to operate. -
Quote:The customization isn't the issue. How that customization is COMMUNICATED is the issue.Originally Posted by reiella
Actually, I'd contest that's more of an intrinsic problem to MMOs. Most games have a solution method for such problems, the common being zoned-walls and instantiation. It's when facing 'zone-less' space that we tend to encounter scalability problems.
Also, I'd strongly contest that heavy customization presents a problem for F2P. I'd argue that heavy customization works decently well with F2P, just perhaps not in a model we're used to seeing in traditional games. Personally, there's one f2p mmo out there that I'm really hard pressed to think of any other game that even approaches it's level of customization.
There are techniques and tradeoffs that can lead to lean communication, but if those techniques aren't in place, you're going to be hard pressed to add them after the fact. -
Quote:It depends on the design, really.Originally Posted by Void_Huntress
A
If they were able to go a step further and subdivide some of the content/zone access to 'mission packs', and shift to a point system for grabbing mission packs, booster packs (or subsets thereof), I think it has the potential to expand their customer greatly even with the increased costs of having to maintain additional server capacity for the moochers.
Some MMO models are very data-lean, very static worlds, or are structured to be tolerant of infrequent map/chatserv updates (maybe 2 per second instead of 4, for example). This lets them get away with very little bandwidth cost or hardware investment per person, and THAT lets them offer F2P at only a marginal risk of "too many moochers."
Other engines don't have the infrastructure necessary to keep the server resources or bandwidth down-- think of systems where player-made objects litter the landscape (they have to be communicated to the user before he gets within visible range for them to appear seamlessly) or every object has its own properties (you can't just send the id for "rebel helm"- each crafted rebel helm can have different properties. you have to send the id for 'rebel helm,' then send the relevant properties for the 'rebel helm').
CoH is a bit of an odd mix. There are some really lean elements and some pieces of the intercommunication that seem to be at their max threshold. It would need a thorough internal analysis to determine whether the "cost per user-hour" meshes with the anticipated revenue-per-user-hour rate. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Celestial_Lord
Honestly, it's pretty clear that Going Rogue failed. The meager bump in subscriber numbers that the game experienced when Going Rogue went live is gone, and now the game has even fewer subscriptions than the period before Going Rogue. Too little, too late I suppose.
The "meager bump in subscriber numbers" isn't the measure of success for business purposes. The measure is-- did the boost in revenue experienced at and around release exceed the investment made through the expansion?. If so, it was successful. The spike of several million in the third quarter may not seem like much, even if you also have to include the # of people that may have stuck around for the release that otherwise wouldn't, but it may not NEED to be a lot.
The entire original CoH game launched for under $15mil from most accounts (some say under $10mil, one semi-reliable source specified ~$12m) so it isn't unlikely that the expansion-- using existing tools, existing server tech, existing practices, etc- could have come in well under that level, making it a success that's worth repeating. -
Quote:Two ways to look at it here:Originally Posted by Pebblebrook
I'm sure the initial development debt has been paid by now, but it still has recurring costs associated with employees, facilities etc. How much that all costs per month is uncertain since the quarterlies doesn't break down costs per game. So we can't really determine if 1 mil a month (closer to 900k) is good, damn good or just ok. All we can say is continued decline is not preferred since at the near future it tends to mean cost cutting somewhere, either future development and/or infrastructure.
1) Our revenue is declining, so let's wind down production to match the declining revenue and let it gracefully, but profitably dwindle away.
2) Our product is aging, but the IP has been well-received over its lifespan, and that makes this intellectual property valuable, and worthy of a new product that can take advantage of its popularity. It will require a fresh cash investment in excess to the existing revenue stream, but one that could be drawn from the revenue of a successful launch, much as the initial investment was. -
Quote:I've had it work occasionally. Cinder and I kept it on while we were collecting exploration badges and got 3 calls in.Originally Posted by AmazingMOO
Does the LFG Queue work on your server?
Are you able to use it?
Do the average start times bear any resemblance to reality?
Do trial teams formed with the queue ever succeed?
On Victory, the answer seems to be a big fat 'No' to all the above. There is a perception that trial teams will not succeed unless they are full and that the LFG tool will not fill a trial team unless it has already been mostly filled by other players. This in turn leads players to not use it, creating a negative feedback loop on its use.
In fact, I've heard players swear up and down that it's broken altogether. It simply doesn't ever put them in trials, so it must not function at all.
What's your experience with the LFG tool?
The trick, as others have mentioned, is that the LFG turnstyle doesn't mesh well with the "let's form and fill a league entirely before entering the trial" behavior that's become somewhat standard. -
Quote:Excellent video, and good use of the era's music. I'm still tempted to take the trailer and apply something by Abney Park to it, though.Originally Posted by GreenFIame
-
Quote:...when NoBody is Somebody, then... Everybody is?Originally Posted by Mr_NoBody
I just hope that somewhere between CoH 5 and CoH 7 I become Somebody....
-
Quote:Good wishlist, and in a perfect world, maybe, but it raises a few issues:Originally Posted by Sylvanus
This may have already been said:
- Ideally, one could simply use the new client if they wanted to and still have access to the "old" servers (which would be updated). Servers would be able to handle requests from either the "classic" client or the new (CoX2) client (I understand that this would significantly add to development time because of having to support and test two separate clients).
- If the above is not possible, allow character transitions from CoX to CoX2 if players want them. Some may wish to stay on the "old" servers for a variety of reasons (Their hardware, personal/group relationships, etc.).
- Update the graphics (more similar to DCUO than CO)
- Update the game while allowing the core of the game to be relatively unchanged. Don't go the route of CO or DCUO when it comes to how to play.
- More destructable objects
- Allow for more seamless/familiar mission architect modules/storylines
- - - Allow for paid storyline content by author (revenue sharing)
- - - Dress it up a bit so that it seems more like you're walking into a comic book store and picking a book off the shelves.
- - - Allow players to play as key characters in theses isolated story arcs. Let them "live" CoH's history.
- Allow for more accessible and publicized weekly and monthly events. Use incentives via badge or otherwise for these events.
- Integrate youtube and screenshot saves with the forum/social media so that players can share their adventures more easily. A set space amount would be given with more space available at a cost.
- Solidify achievements/badges/etc. so they are part of the forums/character profile. Make sure the achievements can be hidden/shown based on player and alt.
- Allow for SG/Forum integration based on server then group. Again, allow for integration so that SG events can be generated on the forum and posted both in game and on forum.
- Allow for SG/VG clashes - Publicize these and if possible make them so that they can simply be watched by people (spectator mode)
- Allow for Hero/Villain challenges (PvP) to be point and achievement based, also allowing for spectator mode. Make sure these achievements are linked to the forum for recognition/promotion.
- Allow spectator mode to be streamed to mobile devices
- Allow some mission editor features to be worked on with mobile devices
- Market and merchandise as much as possible - more so than in the past.
- A F2P element could be in the works. I'm not going to go into that. Implementations and suggestions would be largely based on their approach.
- Allow for storylines to have an overview - allowing the player to decide if they want to go that route or not. Again, similar to going to a comic book store and leafing through an issue or two. This would allow for the player to "buy in" to the storyline more.
Some of this is already somewhat available. I'm looking to have these things more connected. Allow for people who have CoH on their mind when their away from their home computer to connect and interact in some way, shape or form. Allow them to be more involved so that they are thinking about it more. Help drive the desire.
That's all for now. These are just random improvement thoughts off the top of my head. I've played this, CO and DCUO. I'm still here and purchased all the stuff that's come out for CoX. I wish Paragon nothing but the best.
It's late and I'm fading.
Best Wishes to All
1) To allow for much of what you'd want, they'd need a sizable revamp of the communication protocol. They've noted before of the limits to what they can add costume/effect customization-wise because they only have so much data allocated for that, for example. Adding more destructibles similarly adds more to track, which increases the data sent with each tick, which similarly is already straining in active areas.
If you really go so far as revamping this core piece AND you want to keep reverse compatibility with the old client, then you'll have to then make the old client handle the new data format... and that is not as easy as it sounds (there's a reason why devs don't like tampering with things at this level.
---
2) By constraining yourself to just a UI update, you lose the ability to try to modernize gameplay and maybe hit some of those design elements that really don't fit the gamer market that's matured 7 years. Mezz mechanics could use a good revamp, for example...
3) Character transitions are hopeful- They'd have to be level 1 (especially if its new mechanics and reinterpreted powersets) but copying over names, supergroups, and legacy badges would be very nice. -
Quote:The few elements (that I know of) that make CoH2 seem likely are:Originally Posted by Golden_Avariel
I'm not sure what a brand new COH2 would buy us because I don't know what the underlying code is like. As a programmer I can definitely sympathize with the "let's just start over and make it better" train of thought but it rarely works out that well. IMO The only good reason to do a COH2 is if the engine becomes unsustainable for new hardware/OS's and re-writing from scratch becomes easier than doing an update. Even then I would hope they could retain a lot of the stuff that isn't directly tied to the engine.
But what I would like to see Paragon do is either a high Fantasy or SciFi product with the same sort of game-play style we have here in COH. That is, an equipmentless powers game with completely customizable costumes (and possibly races), a decent story, and most importantly a very alt/casual-friendly kind of atmosphere where PvP is fun but entirely optional.
-repeated statements that Paragon studios remains exclusively focused on the City of Heroes franchise.
-several job listings seeking positions for developing a "next-generation" mmo.
- at least one (now former) developer there that had a 'working on a directx11 next-generation mmo' activity in his linkedin profile for almost 6 months before he left.
- around last year, this time, NCSoft registered "City of Heroes 2" as a trademark. NCSoft had registered "CoH2" as a domain as far back as 2004, but that's rather common, just to avoid speculators. The registration of an actual mark of trade is more credible evidence. -
Quote:I'm saying that "CoH1" ends. Kaput. Its CoH2 for everyone. Pre-existing characters may get badges transferred over or names reserved, but that's it... not CoH running while CoH2 has launched.Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
That's an interesting scenario, but in terms of subscription numbers, this would unquestionably split the community or, in a best case scenario, cause a massive migration from CoH (although the idea of people porting their characters or even retaining their precious aliases is remote). For the for the entirely hypothetical CoH/CoH2, an Asheron's Call/Asheron's Call 2 predicament - in which the sequel cannot budge the original and winds up getting cancelled after draining company resources - is entirely possible.
-
Quote:I've seen games that let beta users "reserve" certain names on live servers, so hopefully something like that would be allowed.Originally Posted by Goblin_Queen
I don't know about all the badges (it WOULD be nice tho) but I definitely would want to somehow be able to keep the names. That's my biggest fear that I couldn't be quick enough to catch Goblin Queen or any of my other "mains" in a sequel. I know it's almost not fair for others who may want the same name but.. I had it first? Kinda?
Either that or do something like a few other games do and have names not be unique. That's a whole different can of worms though so I'm not really sure how I feel about all that.
I could also see them do the second option. While I didn't like the initial setup where name@global was always visible in an unidentified mmo that did this, I was pleasantly surprised to see how little confusion setting it to just 'name' (with @global available at mouseover) caused. Conflicts rarely, if ever, came up in zone or team chat. -
Quote:I feel much the sameOriginally Posted by Friggin_Taser
As a long time player of City of Heroes, there is one precious few demand I have if City of Heroes 2 is being made:
Let us keep our City of Heroes characters and their badges and transfer them to the new game.
I don't care if it requires a cosmic reboot where my characters awaken in a new world without any of his powers or experience points and has to level up from 1 again, but I don't like the idea of having to rebuild and replay two characters I've spent nearly 2000 hours on each.
Give us a menu in-game for "Legacy" badges or "Previous Issue" badges that shows what we've earned in CoH 1. Let us carry over some of the veteran rewards and accolades.
Then I'll be happy. If not, I'll just stick with CoH 1 until the servers go down. -
Ok, my own theories on CoH2 "why not just a CoH revamp?"
Well,
1) The game has parts that are going on a decade old. A lot has matured in game programming, in MMO client-server technology, and in general product development. Developing a true "next gen" game experience that is built on that increasingly-rickety foundation seems... unsound.
If you were going to invest all the resources to redo character models to a 'next-gen' standard... including equivalents to all existing costume pieces, redo environments to reflect emerging-market expectations, and enhance the engine to better harness new tech, how confident would you be to deliver it on decade-old tech and game mechanics? if you were going to be THAT ambitions, why not raise the bar and take the whole franchise to the next-gen level?
2) Many of the limits on the current game experience (like BAF/MSR) appears tied more to the messaging mechanic than client-side. That means that a fix would require both client and server side revamps... not just making a new optional "client engine" like some MMO's have done in the past. Having servers communicate differently to two different engines just seems like a bit of overhead.
3) Many of the game mechanics that we've grown to accept, but not necessarily like (like mezz mechanics) would require a fundamental change to the core game-- something that isn't often appealing to existing players (NGE). A thoroughly new game lets mechanics be redesigned more thoroughly and more adequately meet the changing PC(?) gamer market.
-------------------------
So, assuming that there IS a CoH2 in the works, what is it like.
- It is still VERY early in development. If they're looking for the senior positions that they mention, then they're still assembling the team. I'd expect to be celebrating CoH's 10th anniversary before this launches. They're doing planning, concepts, and early prototypes. They may be a bit further ahead, but not by much.
- If NCSoft coordinates some of its internally-owned studios' resources (like Paragon's sister Carbine and ArenaNet) then I might expect full-scale production to be timed to take advantage of the resources freed when those studios launch their current projects. Initial development takes a lot more personnel than sustained development (and often a different set of skills and interests). Drawing some of that talent over helps cross-pollinate groups, exchange ideas, and draw off each others' experiences. The current CoH team would be the core, but there's an awful lot of talent out there to take advantage of.
- The comic book genre is well-known for its 'reboot' of franchises. You can't move this world into the future (Marvel 2099) very effectively, but you can do something akin to an "Ultimate Marvel" or "Infinite Earths" style retelling. I'd expect something along that line- new twists on familiar elements... echos of similarity... but in a way, a modernization of the core CoH universe.
- I don't see this splitting the community. I don't see them doing an everquest/everquest2 setup. I see the incarnate story arc gradully becoming a battle to stop the multiverse collapsing in on itself- a product of the barriers between worlds weakening via the Rikti/magic plot point, the Rularuu invasion, and Cole's own invasion. The incarnate fight becomes a battle between factions hoping to shape this new world to their own needs, and we all fight through to that final moment when the merged universe rights itself... all goes white...
... and our heroes and villainsvemerge in this new world-- perhaps not even heroes-- but they're ready to meet the new challenges of the new world. Some may have some memory of what came before... even if just faint echos that come in dreams. Some events will turn out differently this time- some heroes or villains may take very different paths in this new city, and some new heroes will emerge to fill the void. -
Quote:One of my first suggestions for this was that all the NPC defenders should have a "power" that increases its damage resist based on the number of allied NPC's surrounding it. That would make clearing the enemies a much greater priority while diminishing the effectiveness of the "tank runs ahead, ignores all others, destroys the box and runs away with HP to spare" tactic significantly.Originally Posted by Not_BC
On the other hand, the vast majority of the PvE game IS a mindless zerg where the right answer to any given situation is most likely "more AoE". To say "Trials and raids are supposed to be about learning the best tactic" is a little twee considering that trials and raids represent less than 1% of the PvE experience.
The game was designed as a fast-paced zerg from the outset, and the devs have, if anyting, dumbed down the tactics needed for any given situation almost from release (I could discuss this at length, but it'd be a monumental threadjack). To expect the playerbase to do a 180 and embrace a different style of play when the old one, by your own admission, works is ... interesting.
What I'm saying is that slapping a timer on something forces the mindset of "gotta' get it done fast" on most players, and that instinct, aided and abetted by the very design of the PvE experience from 1-50, works against the marginally superior style of: perhaps we should ponder the relevance of, perchance, a different tactic whereby we use all our allotted time to the mutual benefit of all particpants; to whit we move spawn by spawn as a team and send as many miscreants off to their unjust rewards as possible.
Scrapperlock has a very, very strong hold on this game.
Edit for an additional thought: teamwork could be encouraged if goody boxes and their attendant spawns became progressively tougher, either with distance from the door or with the remaining boxes and their attendant spawns being buffed as the other boxes get defeated. -
Quote:No, I put the flaw squarely on the players involved, not the devs. Trials and Raids are supposed to be about learning the best tactic. Some people have just become fixated on a "working" tactic that isn't necessarily the best, and they're ignoring the problem it causes. The problem is that the people seeing the "zerg" as an absoute failure in tactics aren't the people that actually need to change tactics. Those that don't experience the pain don't see a need to change.Originally Posted by Not_BC
I think this gets the heart of at least one problem with the rewards: because participation is required to get a non-thread reward, it is, IME, pretty logical for players to assume that, to get better rewards, you have to participate more.
Actually, yes, the devs implemented a nasty design flaw in Lambda -- they put the "gather temps" phase on a timer. That encourages players to zerg -- it's just in the nature of the gaming beast. If you have 5 minutes to complete a task, completing it in 3 is better than completing in 5. When players see see the numbers tick down, they assume "GOGOGO!".
The devs, I believe, failed to consider player psychology in their design of these two aspects of the trials.
If anything, I just blame the devs just for not penalizing the zerg behavior enough. Lose x seconds for each death during that phase and maybe some of the aggro managers will start frigging thinking about doing their job (yes, this is a bad idea, but I'm venting- the tanks would just blame the squishies for their deaths).