Creole Ned

[ QUOTE ]
But I think the major issue you had with CoH's starting missions was in the map design. Apparently you had the bad luck to get a randomly picked mission door in the boondocks with red and purple enemies, and felt compelled to fight every single enemy on the way there. CoV's missions aren't so random, and some even appear hardcoded to various spots (snake pit by cobra badge comes to mind.)

Still, it should have been a learning experience as to what con-color actually meant though. It's a standard MMO trope. Don't fight or even go near stuff that's too high level for you. Or you die. Horribly. Maybe a hard pill to swallow, given you're supposed to be a hero, but it's something any MMO player has to figure out sooner or later.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've played a decent number of MMOs. CoH is the *only* one that regularly sends a new player to a mission/quest where they must run a gauntlet of enemies that are much higher level than the player's character. I don't think that's good design, I think it's bad design and can turn off people just trying the game out. The converse -- having players go to missions where they can reasonably tackle any foes they meet along the way -- is not likely to have any negative effects.

I reckon most players don't want "hard pills to swallow" when first trying a new game. They're playing to have fun, not to prove their manhood or something. There's plenty of time for hard challenges. Throwing them at the newbie is not good design.

Everquest 2 has a vet reward program. It's structured a bit differently but the principle is the same.

Very good analysis, InfamousBrad. I agree with it completely. The devs greatly improved the newbie experience in CoV. It's too bad they won't do the same for CoH. It really is pretty mediocre in comparison.

This latest change is an improvement in terms of letting teams deal with attrition better, so that's good. At the same time, it effectively neuters much of the original intent of the fix -- softloading. Given that, the whole exercise seems a bit of a wash.

The required number to start TFs and SFs should still be lowered where applicable. I'd suggest a maximum to start of four players. It would be helpful if such a change was done in a timely manner.

But most importantly, the developers need to sit down amongst themselves and decide once and for all what task forces are supposed to be, who they are supposed to be for and what rewards they should offer. So far these changes have just muddied things rather than clarified them. If they are satisfied with how they are working now, that's fine. If not, the devs need to decide if they are willing or able to devote the time and resources to adjust TFs as necessary.

Caves and cityscapes are pretty generic environments. I wouldn't get too worked up over it.

I'll offer my two cents now that the Valentine's candy is going for 50% off.

The Snaptooth and cross-faction missions: Nothing new here so nothing really to add. I did all but one of the lead-up missions with a large team late at night but we were unable to finish because the one villain we had retired for the night and no others were available. Not surprising given the time but I prefer encouraging cross-faction teaming rather than mandating it.

The test server wedding: Did not attend, sounds like it was a cute event with a few wrinkles that needed to be worked out for future live events.

The wedding pack: too little value for too much money. I doubt I'd make use of *any* of its content, so it was a no-brainer for me not to buy it. I'm not opposed to these kinds of packs but I believe they should have a little more to them for the price being asked.

The "spring fling": First, why is the spring fling taking place in winter? :P I've done the missions on both sides and have to admit, apart from the funny clues (which I wouldn't have even read had they not been pointed out on the forum) they're just bog-standard warehouse missions with nothing to show you've done them afterward. It also made no sense that the presents would be in the Rogue Isles waiting to be stolen or that Arachnos would steal them and drop them into a warehouse in Atlas Park. Maybe they were going to fence the items at the Wentworths there.

There were also two obvious typos in both missions that I noticed: heroes and villains

Overall, pretty meh but the holiday content isn't exactly intrusive so it really doesn't bother me one way or the other.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tony, the point is the manual -- even the updated version -- contains a lot of inaccurate and outdated info. The updated version only covers up to Issue 4. what does it say about ED or Inventions or dozens of other things? Nothing.

The manual is not a good authority on the game any longer because CoH/V, like any MMO, evolves. Address the game as it is, not as the manual professes it to be prior to it even shipping.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but a lot of people seem to have this notion that just because an exploit is popular, it's part of some kind of evolutionary process and shouldn't be fixed. I have zero sympathy for that attitude. The task forces were not working as designed. They took an important step in fixing it.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lots of other stuff...

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you didn't type all that for my benefit. My only point was that the manual does not provide a good foundation for discussing the game because it is a static document that does not reflect any changes in the game, that's all. I wasn't addressing the actual specific TF changes.

Tony, the point is the manual -- even the updated version -- contains a lot of inaccurate and outdated info. The updated version only covers up to Issue 4. what does it say about ED or Inventions or dozens of other things? Nothing.

The manual is not a good authority on the game any longer because CoH/V, like any MMO, evolves. Address the game as it is, not as the manual professes it to be prior to it even shipping.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, now to reply to Lady, altho Tremere has NO clue what he's talking about. Sigh.

Ok. I think to let people choose the EXACT recipe they want would probably not be to good of a thing (the market would all of a sudden be flooded with LotG's, Numina's, and Miracles) I have a slightly different way to rearrange it.

REMOVE the Single-Origin rewards. They're pointless. Replace them with recipe categories. Melee, Ranged, PBAoE, Dam Res, Def, etc..... So even if you get a recipe that doesn't sell for to much, it's still from a set you can use, hopefully.

And also it keeps things partially random so one recipes value on the market doesn't fluctuate to much, hopefully.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like this suggestion. Coupling this with moving several of the generally unwanted recipes from Pool C and putting them into, say, Pool A would be an improvement over the current system and would not cause any big issues that I can see.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not arging that they should stay with the original design. I'm just saying that since the current statement by the devs states that they are not intended to be casual content, that the design supports that statement as it currently exists.

I am in favor of casual TFs existing as well as hardcore ones.

The ones we have now (with the possible exception of the most recent ones as you have pointed out) are more hardcore. Having there be 'softcore' TFs in addition would itself be a change.

Maybe even a change they have already moved towards. And that's fine.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, pretty much.

I don't think the original TFs accurately reflect what the devs see for TFs today (most are designed for pick-up groups to manage in a single session, a few high-end ones are intended for the hardcore players). The question is when and whether the devs will revise the original TFs. It's always seemed like a low priority. I'm hoiping this change signals that revising the original TFs will become a higher priority.

Also, what constitutes "casual" is a tricky thing to define. Does it mean "soloable"? For me, it means "can be completed in a reasonable time by a good PuG". What it may mean to others is open to debate.

I do think all TFs should be completable in a single session. The days of TFs being split up over multiple sessions due to sheer length should be over.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously....this is a MAJOR ball drop here, and the "official" comments so far have been nothing but an attempt to "pull wool over our eyes".

[/ QUOTE ]

So what sinister truth do you think They are trying to keep from you?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there something useful to be gained by constantly chasing after people suggesting conspiracy theories in this thread? You've made your point, there's no need to repeat it over and over. It just becomes noise.

I'd rather we discuss the meat of the issue -- the actual changes made to TFs.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree.

- Just look at the number of missions in the typical TF: hours of content for the average player.
- Just look at the fact that there is a minimum number to start it.
- Just look at the fact that you can't use normal contacts during it.
- Just look at the fact that they typically end with AVs.

This is obviously not content that was intended for the average PUG.

As I said before, the Devs may want TFs to change to be intended for average PUGs. If so, THAT would be a change, and a lot more than soft spawning would need to change to accomodate that.

That does not meed that there does not also need to be hardcore content.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I disagree with you.

Newer TFs break out of the design box used for the ones that shipped with CoH back in 2004. The devs simply haven't modified *all* aspects of TFs to fit the revised way of designing them. At one time one of the golden rules of TFs was "if you outlevel it, tough cookies", then they added auto-exemplaring.

Also note the devs have stated TFs were originally meant to be supergroup content. However, they made no alterations to the structure of TFs before shipping the game to better reflect that they were now open to PuGs. We're dealing with a cobbled-together design.

Really, Kitsune, you seem to be arguing for a vision long since past and I'm not sure why you would when the reality of the game and the way it has been played for *years* is very different. Trying to force players to play in a way they clearly don't want to simply doesn't work.

The farming potential isn't really the main point of contention in the change -- for me, anyway.

My concern, as others have also pointed out, is that TFs and SFs that have higher minimum player requirements are going to be that much harder to complete with pick-up groups because the missions will no longer adjust to the attrition that might happen.

I can't think of how that is a good thing.

Yes, TFs are team content. I have no problem with that. But of all the TFs I've done the only ones that have never had players drop are ones I've down with my SG. Nearly all of the PuGs have lost players. These TFs will now be tougher for those groups, with no commensurate reward to go along with the increased risk.

It also shows just how much impact inventions (loot) are having on the game now. So much for just ignoring them if you want to.

This isn't ED or the GDN but it is a rather graceless solution to an alleged problem.

Yeah, because people hate that arcane salvage, y' know.

Tremere, the farmers will choose the TF or SF mission (note: singular mission) that best suits their needs and just farm that, resetting as needed.

This change is a flat-out boon to farmers. I don't farm AT ALL and even I can see it.

LH is just the messenger. It's not surprising he thought the fix may have been a bug, since the Ouroboros TF-style missions *were* bugged with huge spawns. The devs never communicated the TF changes to the players or to him, it seems.

Task and Strike Forces are due for a major revamp, anyway. Instead of just trying to plug supposed exploits, how about the developers put some time on the schedule to:

1. Address the disparity in TFs between the hero and villain sides. Namely, give the villain side more SFs to balance the two sides.
2. Reduce the minimum number of players required for a TF or SF to a maximum of six. Only exception: STF and LRSF, since they are meant to be endgame challenges and "hardcore".
3. Rework most of the original TFs in CoH. Simply put, the majority are way too long. It would be one thing if each mission was unique and exciting but they are literally nothing more than door missions strung together, something you do throughout regular gameplay. Tacking an AV to the end of the last one doesn't make a TF special. When a player gets the reward at the end of a TF or SF, it should feel like something they truly earned, not just a gift for slogging through a bunch of stock door missions and AV. Some TFs are like this now. Most aren't. The Positron TF is rather embarrassing as the introduction to TFs in general. Bland and overlong. The Shadow Shard TFs are bursting with filler missions that do nothing but extend the length needlessly.
4. Consider allowing a TF or SF to recruit new players if they drop below the minimum number of players. Adjust rewards accordingly (ie. don't let a player that joins for just the last mission qualify for the end of TF reward).
5. Merge the markets. Two other major MMOs, EQ2 and WoW, both allow the opposing factions to sell to the other. There's no reason to keep an artificial separation in CoH/V, especially since the entire process in this game is blind -- you wouldn't know you were buying from a villain or hero, anyway.

I don't object to them trying to fix softloading but I think we are way past due on getting other just as important changes made to TFs. These should be the premier content of the game and as often as not, they are really nothing special at all.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Completely new tilesets that are not just a reskinned warehouse. The famous "moon base" idea, possibly with different gravity (you jump higher and farther, and fall slower) would be awesome. You could make moon environments actually feel and play different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the RWZ Rikti maps through the caves? Those totally unique maps?

[/ QUOTE ]
Minor nitpick: The Rikti maps aren't completely unique. They use the same cave models introduced way back in Issue 2 while adding new Rikti elements, along with a few new cave pieces, in much the same way the Faultline missions and zone rework existing cave maps and tech lab maps with new bits to create underground submarine lairs or abandoned supergroup bases.

It's an effective and economical re-use of assets but it is not the same as 100% unique maps, of which we have seen few over the last nearly four years (and is probably my #1 overall beef with the game).

And to stay on-topic, I will re-iterate my position on the wedding pack: too little value for too much money. I won't be purchasing it for both of those reasons. I'm not going to act all outraged over it, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a minor nitpick and I'll blow it out of the water.

Why should they have to create whole new map parts for the tack-ons to get into the yummy-goodness?

Should they have created all new maps to merge the sewers to caves to inside office? Even though it was just a unique mix-and-match, that's a new, unique map that was quite awesome in how it worked out!

And they *should* have reused those parts, as it makes you really think that you are going from a standard sewer and into a building through caves.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a reply to this, but we're way off-topic. If you'd like to start a thread or take it to PMs, let me know!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Completely new tilesets that are not just a reskinned warehouse. The famous "moon base" idea, possibly with different gravity (you jump higher and farther, and fall slower) would be awesome. You could make moon environments actually feel and play different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the RWZ Rikti maps through the caves? Those totally unique maps?

[/ QUOTE ]
Minor nitpick: The Rikti maps aren't completely unique. They use the same cave models introduced way back in Issue 2 while adding new Rikti elements, along with a few new cave pieces, in much the same way the Faultline missions and zone rework existing cave maps and tech lab maps with new bits to create underground submarine lairs or abandoned supergroup bases.

It's an effective and economical re-use of assets but it is not the same as 100% unique maps, of which we have seen few over the last nearly four years (and is probably my #1 overall beef with the game).

And to stay on-topic, I will re-iterate my position on the wedding pack: too little value for too much money. I won't be purchasing it for both of those reasons. I'm not going to act all outraged over it, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Badge! Badge! Badge!
Come on guys! join in!

[/ QUOTE ]
No thanks. There's already one can of worms being opened with charging for costumes and emotes. If they threw in a badge with it, it would open up a whole new can of worms with accusations of trying to extort money from badge hunters.

IMHO, given that they're going to charge for something, this is exactly the right way to have done it. Maybe throw in some kind of prestige power, but certainly not a badge. I didn't like the RMT for the VIP badges, and I wouldn't like it if they did it again.

As for the event itself, I'm looking forward to it. I'll be there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why I didn't put a badge in this pack.

[/ QUOTE ]
You = smart.

I don't mind that they are charging for the pack since it is just (rather niche) fluff that won't offer any gameplay benefits (well, outside of roleplaying weddingaholics, I guess). $9.99 is perhaps a bit much for what you get (I'd think $4.99 or $5.99 would be better) but hey, we are all free to vote with our dollars.

I am curious to see how the Valentine event plays out, especially after Venture's dose of borderline contempt.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is all fantastic, but the one thing missing now is being able to see the change in these numbers _before_ you slot enhancement, in the popup alongside the %ages.

Then finally people might stop slotting hover and combat jumping for defence

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you want the bonuses and specials from a IO Defense Set (Luck of the Gambler, anyone) and your powersets have no powers that take a defense set.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point stands that it would be nice to see how enhancements will affect a power before being slotted (with actual numbers, not the ephemeral percentages you get in the enhancement screen). That's still a UI issue that's never been satisfactorily resolved post-ED (for me, anyway). And "copy to test first" isn't exactly a boffo solution, either.

Ideally you'd be able to "test drive" an enhancement without having to purchase it first (maybe right-click the enhancement in the store window and it shows you a breakdown of how it would add/affect any applicable powers on your character).

Regardless, kudos to pohsyb for getting the numbers into the hands of the players, a long-wanted and much appreciated feature.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing... did anyone not know that Freedom has the highest population and that this event would bring more players online over the weekend? Are you going to tell us that there was nothing you could have done to prevent this on your own? Like tell your friends, "Hey, in case the server gets too full, maybe we should make some alts someplace else."

[/ QUOTE ]
Why even use double XP if you're going to then have to create new characters just for the event?


People are majorly overreacting to the lockouts IMO, but that is a flawed argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because you can play those alts year-round. I doubt many people would create alts specifically to play only during double XP events. The point is that you don't put all your eggs (characters) in one basket (Freedom), that's all.

Servers have finite capacity, even upgraded servers. That's all. They don't know what kind of player load they'll see on the weekend so LH thought it might be prudent to warn players of possible server locks happening.

Ye gods, people are cynical.

[ QUOTE ]
Uhhhhh.... yeah. Can't say what I want to say, the long and abusive string of obscene epithets would violate forum rules. So I'll just say that if I get locked out of Virtue this weekend, I will be deeply angry. I mean truly enraged. Locking me out of the only server I can stand to play on during double-XP weekend would tick me off more than any MMO company has ticked me off since a long-ago incident involving Funcom and Anarchy Online, more than what Sony did to SWG ticked me off. No, really; it had better not come to this.

Edit: Speaking of server performance, though, whatever you guys did to the blue-side consignment house servers, it wasn't enough. They're still awfully sluggish, and unless Thursday's downtime is to address that, it will presumably be even worse this weekend.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, what would you propose NCsoft do, exactly? Let performance go down the tubes for everyone on Virtue to save you getting deeply angry and truly enraged?

A server can only hold so many players simultaneously before performance drops. LH is giving us a heads-up that temporary server locks might happen. I don't think they will, myself, but I appreciate the notice. And if my preferred server got locked, I'd play on another or do something else for awhile. It's just not a big deal to me. I can't really understand getting upset about it.

No, debt is unchanged.