Dalghryn

Goody, still *more* arcs to add to the list that keeps growing exponentially...

Hm... If I might comment on your rules, PW.

I have two grown children who, though they've allegedly moved out, are still a couple of handfuls; a 7 1/2 month old baby; a house with a large yard desperately in need of mowing and other such stiff; oh, and a full time job. I'm running two super groups (with a website that's criminally behind on updating) and am trying to keep my two arcs as state-of-the-art as I can. I have a list of arcs a page long that I either owe runs to or want to run, and I've seen a dozen others that have interested me. My wife and I *try* to game together, so any time I have to actually play is almost always with her and - as you might note from the aforementioned "stuff" - it is very limited lately.

In short, as much as there are several arcs I've run that I'd *love* to have the leisure to run again... and again... "It ain't a happnin' thang." Heck I've had to stop four times just in the middle of this post.

I can respect, and even understand, your rule for multiple plays, but if you want me to participate - or others in similar boats - then that rule's going to have to be re-thunk. In the mean time, I'll watch your thread and probably add each of the arcs listed to my every-growing list.

I finally got to DL and listen to the review for "The Consequences of War - Part 2". Thanks, VERY much! You're praise was touching, and the one critique you guys voiced was the final straw that broke that camel's back. After hearing you and others comment on it, I've replaced the carnie tent map with one that turns that entire mission on its ear. You definitely feel the war with the new map.

Oh, and it's pronounced... Doll-Grin.

Thanks again!

It's done, and with remarkably little problem. I looked at every outdoor map and the only one that kept jumping out at me was Little Round Top in the RWZ. I simply changed the mission intro to read that the bunker had been taken by the Rikti several weeks earlier. I think the mission's incredible - probably the most war-like mission of the ten. Definitely a change from the carnie tents, that's for sure.

The Vanguard bunkers were my biggest hang up with using the RWZ map. But, the war *is* six months in by that point, so having established a bunker as close to the fallen mothership as possible would certainly be plausible.

I'd also have to make it seem understandable why the jammers have been placed there but have gone unidentified as such. Doable with the proper text, but a little problematic. I really haven't found another outdoors map I like - most are just too big - and a mission of the scale I'm wanting has to be outdoors.

Okay, the Aentertainment Tonight review was the last straw for poor Mission #2 of Part 2. Their only complaint was the Carnival of Shadows tent map. In this case, however, they specifically said the map seemed out-of-place in the war scenario. Taken in context with other comments about ths particular map, I've decided to throw in the towel.

As soon as time permits, I'll be replacing this map with the RWZ Vanguard compound map with the fallen Rikti mothership in the background and changing all the related text dealing with that mission to match. So, it will still be an outdoor map of about the same size, but the setting will be far more Rikti War-like.

If those of you that have been so generous in providing input into my other changes would care to comment, I'm all ears... er... eyes.

I wasn't "calling for" a nerf to mechanics so much as suggesting that maybe there was a way of adjusting the mechanics rather than the XP. It just seems as if they always adjust XP as a solution before eventually finding the mechanics adjustment that would have worked best in the first place.

You all make very valid points, most of which I thought about after I'd posted my just-woke-up-from-a-Benadryl-induced-coma thoughts. The frustrating thing is the same thing that's always frustrating about this game - that is that farmers and exploiters drive development decisions, rather than the wants, hopes, and desires of the by-the-book (or relatively so) playerbase.

Hire an employee or two with nothing more than a basic game-player's experience to run MA arcs and flag farms for review and removal. My guess is you could find hundreds of applicants that would much rather play CoH all day long as a paying job rather than work at McDonald's or Buy More for the same salary.

Stop penalizing the people that play by the rules because it's an easier fix than directly addressing the ones that don't.

What I don't understand, and what no one else seems to have mentioned, is why the developers can't simply make an arc unpublishable if there aren't the proper balances of minion/lieutenant/bosses and custom villain group power levels instead of nerfing XP.

It seems to me that, since you can't even publish an arc if there isn't text in an appropriate field, or if you haven't selected the proper map for the number of activities you've written into a mission, that they could do the same with the creation of custom villain groups that are used as spawns in a mission.

Since my arcs don't use custom villain groups, and are thus not affected by the latest nerfs, maybe I'm missing something. If so, I'm sure someone will explain it to me. In any case, there has to be a fix to their perception of the problem that doesn't involve crippling XP.

I agree with Eva that the number of people that think MA should be rewarding zero XP is quite small, if not "negligible." That said, I agree with Venture and some others that think there are other factors drawing people away from MA (and the rest of the game, for that matter) right now. Again, CO is punching CoH in the face at the moment - that should have been expected. Of the folks I know that are playing it, my guess is somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 will return eventually, but right now there are a bunch of people playing the new shiny superhero MMO.

Arkam Asylum has drawn of a bunch of folks for the moment as well. Now whether or not the people that are off consoling at the moment are the people that are abandoning our story-based arcs (as opposed to the farms), I have no idea. But once they burn out on AA, they'll be back.

There are other new shinies that have been released in relatively close proximity to the release of I16, too. How any of these will ultimately affect our MA is anyone's guess. Having a *fixed* MA would certainly be a better draw to get them back, but you can bet it doesn't matter at the moment - I16 didn't have anything to do with their being gone, for now.

I just updated the information in my arcs' description to include the phrase "Full XP" along with "SBMA", "Part 1 of 2", and so on.

Maybe this will help people find arcs that either have no custom enemies (like mine) or have balanced custom enemy groups that reward 100% XP. Frankly, I wish it weren't an issue, and hopefully the devs will fix things so it isn't, but in the mean time, maybe arc creators could look at this as an option for letting players know there are no XP penalties in the arcs.

Thoughts?

I think the best metaphor, and one that's really pretty close to not *being* a metaphor, is comparing the work we put in creating an arc to the work an author puts into writing a book. Whether they enjoy writing or not, the real joy comes from having others read, and react to, the creation. Seeing others entertained by your work, and even becoming emotionally involved in it (if that's a goal you've worked for) is the reward we're looking for.

As the system currently stands, there are barriers to that that are starting to disillusion creators. Hopefully the powers-that-be will fine tune the search function, find ways of removing farms and broken (and ignored) content, and make the Dev's Choice award a viable and rewarding function again.

I've edited the first post of this thread to include information about reviewer ratings and the current MA rating for both arcs. I'll be keeping this up as new information comes in, though I'm pratty sure the frequncey of new reviewer ratings will decrease now that the arcs have been reviewed by most everyone doing the job.

I'm tempted to slit my wrists... Something came up with my baby girl last night and I wasn't able to listen to the show. PLEASE tell me you've got it saved and it's just a matter of figuring out how to get it posted somewhere. I was really looking forward to hearing it. So was my wife.

The majority of what I'd have to say about this has been said in one form or another by previous posters, so I really only have a couple of comments.

First, one poster touched on this, but I think it needs to be hammered home: Arkham Asylum, Champions Online, etc. These new shineys are *huge* draws from the game at this moment in time, for both players and creators. It isn't helping that there *are* problems with MA that are contributing to the "Heck, may as well go try XXX because MA's borked" attitude. Their influence on things will probably balance out over time.

Second, harsh reviewers are breaking the morale of creators... really?! Come on, I've had a couple of reviews that just kicked my rear, but I took them with either a grain of salt (in one case) or I culled the good suggestions and made my arcs better - just like I've done with all the reviews, nice or not so nice. Heck, I'm almost in Venture's sights, and there's no telling whether that'll be a celebration or a suicide, but I'm still looking forward to it. It can't hurt my arcs, and it *can* make them better. Anyone that claims harsh reviews as an excuse for taking their ball and going home needs to do something else. And the fact remains that most creators don't read these threads or submit their arcs for review anyway.

In short, I think the title of the thread is an example of the doom and gloom mentality that's accompanied every big change to CoH since its inception. No slam intended to the OP, but MA isn't in need of "saving." It's in need of fixing. There's a difference.

Just my two bits.

I'm thinking my arcs will fill the bill now. Fair warning, though they should meet all your requirements nicely, they're emotionally intense. Enjoy (I hope.)

The difference between the Dev's Choice debacle versus the other stuff (and what in heck was the Batcat/catbat thing?) is that, with the proper attention and good technical decision-making, the powers-that-be could have a content bonanza with the MA that could - hypothetically - keep this ship sailing forever.

I think they should...

1 - (and I'm sorry to make this suggestion for your sake, Sumericon) scrap all the current Dev's Choices for now,
2 - develop a set of internal guidelines regarding what qualifies
3 - post the majority of these where everyone can see them - here and in-game in the help section
4 - assign an *employee* with good story-oriented skills as well as technical savvy to review arcs to triage and make recommendations to assigned devs with similar skills,
5 - actually make contact with arc creators that have arcs under consideration (with the first batch priority going to the original Dev's Choice recipients out of fairness) with recommended corrections that will bring the arc to specs (if necessary)
6 - post a first batch of about a dozen *New* Dev's Choices.
7 - post at least two new Dev's Choices a month
8 - post ten to twelve new Dev's Choices with each issue.

That's just me, but if they did something like this, and everyone knew they were serious, I think it would be a boon to us, them, and the game.

Of course they'll still need to address the current XP problems and such, but with the attention they give to PvP, I don't see where that *should* be a problem.

OK, I can continue posting here now that I'm no longer operating without all the proper knowledge.

First, I'd say I'll eat crow, but for the record I *never* said all the Dev's Choices were bad. I said that dozens of the arcs critiqued in this forum were better than the Dev's Choice lot. That's not an exact quote, but it's close enough. In later conversation I clarified a bit, stating basically that there are many arcs in this forum that are better than most arcs that have made Dev's Choice.

Having played Sumericon's "Once and Future King" (arc #71601), I'll stick to my assertion. I'll grant that OaFK is one of the better Dev's Choices. It is interesting, well-written, well-researched, and technically sound. It expands on CoH canon in a way that fleshes out Paragon City history for the better. I'd certainly be hypocritical if I didn't give points for that, given what my arcs are all about. It would work quite well as part of CoH content. In fact, I'd even say that, if the majority of the Dev's Choices were as good, many of us wouldn't be as inclined to be critical.

That said, it still has flaws that, yes, *in my opinion*, would have been discussed and possibly improved had the arc been subject to the same scrutiny many of the arcs in this forum have been subject to. My guess is that Police Woman, Airhead, Bubbawheat, and/or Mister Captain Man would have suggested areas that could have been expanded on in regard to story and text that would have caused the story to grab the player better. Any number of reviewers would have spoke about the fact that the allies are pretty overpowered and explained why depowering them some would be better for the arc and players. My guess is LJ, Lazarus, and Venture would have been first to do that.

Pretty much everyone would have taken note of the "defeat all" in the third mission and questioned its need, especially in light of the fact that the MA tour and help files themselve specifically note that "defeat alls" are *not* good things. Those are just the most obvious examples of how the arc could have been improved. Which is what the better arcs in this forum have all been subject to. As I've said, it isn't catering or conforming. It's accepting constructive input from perspectives outside your own to make it better.

At the time the Dev's Choices were chosen, OaFK was likely a gem compared to others. It still is when compared to most of the rest of the current Dev's Choices. Given the changes to the MA, the willingness of many authors to subject their arcs to criticism for constructive purposes, and the additional time other authors have had to learn the MA and develop innovative ways of using its resources, I'll still contend that there are many arcs in this forum that are better than most of the Dev's Choices. Call it opinion if you like, but playing word games doesn't change anything.

The bottom line - and the point I was really trying to make - is, the Dev's have been all but criminally negligent when it comes to selecting and posting Dev's Choice awards. They raced to throw anything vaguely decent into the mix when I14 went live - they just happened to be fortunate enough to catch some pretty good ones, like OaFK. I tend to think the intent in the beginning was good. Maybe they underestimated the time it would take to actually play and critique arcs. Maybe they really didn't have a game plan and just wanted to show everyone all the MA bells and whistles of the time. Since then, however, they've done almost nothing to improve their track record and it certainly seems they have no game plan. Maybe waiting until the entire playerbase (or at least those that were interested) had an opportunity to learn the ins and outs of the MA and establish some systems of interaction that would support improved arc creation - like those in this forum, the various MA guides, the MA channels, the MA websites, wikis, etc. - would have been a better plan.

In any case, we've all but handed them a veritable cornucopia of great choices in this forum. That isn't to say there probably aren't other great arcs out there that aren't discussed here. It does, however, give them a place to start rather than beginning to look for a needle in a haystack of 400,000 arcs.

And simply *starting* would really be a good thing, wouldn't it?

After receiving a couple of complaints about the difficulty of finding the "jammers" in the second mission of Part II, a couple of whom claimed it was hidden or not generated, I decided to re-run it myself. I also had problems finding one of them, though I eventually did. I decided to change it from the smaller, black Rikti pod thingie (a technical term) to the much larger and far easier to find Rikti big triangular electrical doohickie (another technical term).

I also added some new dialogue to the allies that stick around to help based on the new I16 changes to the MA.

With all the changes, I decided that we really were into the 7th version of the arcs, so (though it really doesn't matter a lick to anyone but me) I'm now officially calling each arc "Version 7.0." Aren't you thrilled?

Finally, I got a tell from M I Abrahms of Aentertainment Tonight fame, telling me they voluntarilly ran Part II and will be reviewing it on the 24th. He had some nice things to say, but I won't spoil the review. If you're into heavier 70's and 80's rock and some enjoyable banter about CoH, tune it.

Sweet review on Aentertainment Tonight tonight. They gave CoW - Part 1 five stars and commented about "the sad moment." Awe, they got it. They also said Hro'Dath was "bloody huge!" It was a fun few minutes.

Check out their thread at http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=185931 .

Are there any particular I16 changes you think are mandatory for a better story? I've looked through everything and, though I do plan on using the health decline comments in a couple of places, I really didn't see anything they've added that would give me the opportunity to improve the story/gameplay. If they'd fix a couple of the ongoing bugs, yeah... but that's a different topic. Besides, something they've done managed to eat up a couple more percent of my avaliable memory, so I'm pushing it already.

Thanks for the "Consequences of War - Part 1" review, guys. My wife and I chuckled... and I was flattered at your comments. I'm very glad you liked it.

By the way, Hro'Dath does use the Hro'Drotz model, but he's a completely different "bloody huge" Rikti.