Hydrophidian

Maybe you don't, but I have some idea. I don't see much indication that secondary builds are widely utilized, and if it were a nigh-universal practice--which it would have to be to cause a 'doubling of demand'--I would. We all would. It'd come up in conversation all the time: on the boards, on channels, in teams, and so on. "Let me switch to my other build." ... "I'm going to build out for X on my secondary build." ... "What kind of build should I add to my [insert AT here]?"

But I haven't seen any of that at all. Not an immediate embrace of the option, nor a gradual one. My impression is that it's something a portion of the playerbase does on select characters. That may or may not be a correct impression, but one thing is certain: it most assuredly is not anywhere close to being a universal practice.

And that was implicit in the claim.

Hence the bewildered rejection of it.

The reasoning behind the 3rd build was stated. Personally, I think their prediction of how players will build is off. Regardless, if you're saying the introduction of the third build implies universal adoption of multiple builds, I'd disagree. I just don't see people operating that way.

You're right! Who said that, anyway? 'Cuz it wasn't me!

There are actually several reasons why I find it painfully obvious that filling out secondary builds is not pursued enough to substantiate a claim of 'doubling demand'.

You would've known that if you read my post.

So either you didn't really read it, or you did, and you just decided to try to reinvent it to fit your own purposes, leaving out the stuff that you didn't have an answer for.

Either way, it suggests to me that you're not really the advocate of honesty and accuracy you're pretending to be.

'Doubling' something implies spike to me? o.O

Anyways, the point is, I don't remember seeing any shifts in the market that one might've expected if a large number of players were suddenly pursuing secondary builds. Nor do I recall any real discussion about it amongst the market crowd. No one was saying 'hey, this is happening, maybe secondary builds are the culprit?' The general impression at the time seemed to be more or less what it is now: it's a neat thing that some people in niche crowds (PVPers and players who favor support types) might take advantage of when they get around to it. Market impact: negligible.

So... I saw no signs of a rush to it when it was introduced, and neither, apparently, did you, because I'm pretty sure you would've trumpeted 'em in your response if you had.

I've also not seen any signs that the adoption of it has significantly grown in the two years it's been around, nevermind expanding to the point of becoming commonplace. And again, I'm assuming you haven't either, 'else you would've cited 'em.

So, do you actually have anything at all to support the idea that this practice is common? Seems you don't. Which would seem to support my view that its lack of adoption is plainly evident?

How about you just take a look at how people are playing the game?

From what I can see, the behavior blatantly indicates that employing secondary builds is not at all a common practice. Personally, I'd guess it's rare. Uncommon might be debatable. But universal? No, clearly not.

If you're not actually contesting that, then I'll consider this done! Have a spiffy day!

Do you actually play the game, by chance?

Were you watching the market when I13 was released?

When I13 hit, was there a flurry of activity on the market forum about a sudden spike in demand for, well... everything? No, there wasn't.

Yet, there's been discussion around here about every other game development that's had a significant impact on the market, yah? And a sudden 'doubling of demand' would've been a pretty frickin' significant and blatantly apparent development, right? So... why was this alleged phenomenon treated any differently? If 'demand doubled with the advent of two builds' why didn't discussions about it appear?

Furthermore, do you see any real substantial amount of dialogue about multiple builds on these forums, anywhere? If it was a nigh-universal practice to utilize multiple builds, wouldn't it see as much community discussion as every other commonly adopted practice?

Do you know of even a single player who uses all available builds on every single character they play? Because that's what's implicit in the assertion: that we're all doing that. I don't. Do you?

I'd be hard pressed to accept the notion that maintaining multiple builds is more than a rare, niche practice, let alone the widely adopted behavior the claim implies. I mean, for Pete's sake, I've run across multiple people who didn't even know unlocking the Incarnate stuff opened up a third build on their characters!

Anyway.

"You seem to be completely forgetting that demand has doubled with the advent of two builds" was an absurd assertion, made even more laughable because it was presented as a given. It's obviously false to anyone who actually, y'know, plays the game and pays a modicum of attention to the trends that form in it.

It's reasonable to assume anyone participating in discussions such as this possesses at least that baseline of informed awareness. Thus, having to "support" one's bewilderment and rejection of such an obviously inane statement shouldn't be necessary.

And, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who demands such support is likely being a disingenuous participant in the dialogue, looking to derail it into a nitpicky, tedious footslog of ponderously qualified language.

Yuck, no thanks.

I'm gonna engage in these discussions casually. If you don't like that, put me on ignore.

Ding.

Wow.

Uhm...

No.

- Survivability. No one was an easy kill. Instant death happened rarely or not at all.
- Contribution. Feeling as though I brought something valuable to the fight.
- Achievement. Meeting conditions for victory or preventing the opponents from meeting theirs.
- Positive atmosphere. Everyone was having fun. No surliness, no vitriol, just good spirits and friendly rivalries. Sometimes even (hysterical) roleplay.

CoH has rarely delivered on all counts for me. But when it did, it was truly memorable. These rare instances were always in Siren's Call, back when open PVP was first introduced. I do believe that, out of all the PVP zones, Siren's Call has far and away the best design, and is most likely to engender the above conditions.

This is why I think there needs to be a distinction between "casual play" and "casual player".

I know a lot of people for whom the game is a social and/or creative outlet. I wouldn't call them casual players (or, maybe more accurately, casual subscribers?). They are most certainly 100% focused on casual play, though.

I'd disagree with this. I had a badger. But 1. there were always limits to what I'd do to get the badges, 2. I took my own sweet time getting them and 3. now that side-switching is involved, I've dumped it with a shrug. Badging, for me, is now more specialized.

It comes down to demand for investment. If an activity doesn't demand much, it can be approached casually and will appeal to people who favor that approach. Most everything in City can be approached casually. I'd call that one of its strengths.

Can't you?

I know a group of people who I would say are serious gamers, but with a somewhat casual approach to the games they play. They have multiple game nights, they coordinate their activities and have goals to achieve.

But, when it comes to any given game, their time investment is minimal. With City, for example, they log in once a week for a few hours, do X (such as, for example a Praetorian arc), then log out. That's it.

Is that casual? They could nod to most of your checklist, but do they really qualify?

If not impossible. Or... it could be absurdly easy. Depends on how you define it. This is part of why I say I think it's more about overall approach.

My own approach and attitude is, in a broad sense, definitely casual. If it feels like grinding to me, I stop doing it. I'm pretty laid back about obtaining the shiny stuff: I'll get it when I get it. My characters are not performance-driven, my play style not very goal-oriented. I much prefer loose/experimental gameplay over structured teaming. Until recently, I averaged only one 50 a year. Only three of the 50s I have are "tricked out", and it's taken me literally years to get around to getting them that way.

But I am, by no stretch of the imagination, a casual player.

This is because, at any given time, I am deeply vested in some aspect of the experience. It might not even be something in-game (like my game-related audio projects), but, whatever it is, it's taking up a lot of my free focus and attention (which usually means a lot of my free time as well).

I greatly value this game and the entertainment/inspiration/diversion/escape/exploration/community it's provided for me. I've been very dedicated to it for almost seven years now.

Yet, despite the fact that I am by no measure a casual player, one of this game's fundamental draws for me has been its accommodation of casual play...

• I don't have to worry about focusing all my time on one or two characters in order to participate.
• Almost any character I create is going to have some capacity to solo.
• Almost any character I create will contribute something useful to a team, and generally won't be excluded simply because they're not built just so.
• I can goof around with a dizzying variety of concepts. There is no inherent pressure in the game design to specialize in a particular niche. Due to the sheer number of possible alts you can play, it actually encourages a generalist approach. I'm very fond of that because, although I strongly favor support types, I do like to dabble in everything.
• Shiny stuff isn't a requirement. It's nice, but I don't need it. I still have some 50s with SOs, others with common IOs. They work fine, they contribute, they're still fun to play. They do not feel superfluous on a team (a feeling I particularly dislike).
• I can throw a team together composed of just about any mix of anything and be relatively certain that there's a way to make the dynamic workable and successful (yes, there are exceptions to this rule, but they are few and far between, and tend to only need one of two components in the mix). I don't have to spend a lot of time constructing the optimal team configuration, and everyone can play what they want.
• I can completely ignore the market, if I wish to do so.
• I can delve into various aspects of the game (base building, MA, badging, marketing, PVP) and then put them aside again at will. None of these things require a "lock" on my time and commitment to have fun with them.
• People do not have to be thoroughly versed in the nuances of game mechanics to play. It certainly helps, but they can get by without it. This makes bringing friends in much easier. Especially if they're casual. They can just log in and go.
• I can log in for all of a dozen hours over the course of a few months and not worry about falling way behind on the curve by doing so. This affords me the luxury of doing other game/community-oriented things: writing, art, audio, website design, social participation, and so on, without concern that my characters will be screwed. I can have practically zero investment in gameplay, yet maintain a deep investment in the game. That keeps me paying the subscription, and I don't think there's anything out there that accomplishes this as well as City does.

So. I'm not a casual player, no. But most of my play is very casual and I like it that way.

...close to my view. I'd say: style, attitude, approach. I don't think your diagnosis questions really hit the mark, though, because, as I see it...

1. It's possible to approach the market casually and still make oodles of inf.
2. It's possible to spend a lot of time logged in during the week and still be casual.
3. It's possible to be casual and use Mids (though, yah, that's starting to push it).
4. It's certainly possible to read the forums and be a casual player.
5. Casual players may very well know what a shard is and want them. It's just going to take them a longer time to accumulate them.
6. It's possible, and even likely, for a casual player to be a badger.
7. It's definitely possible to be a casual PVPer, because I'm one of them.


To me, casual is less about investment of time and more about investment of focus.

For example, let's say you have two players. They're both into the game. They are both logged in at least a couple hours a night...

Player 1 is in a large supergroup with established TF nights, has multiple 50s (most, if not all of them, function-oriented), has optimized builds for their characters (built in Mids), and likely knows many arcane details about game functionality. Their time in-game is spent on goal-oriented gaming. Could be doing TFs, could be solo-farming, could be PVPing, but whatever it is, they're getting something done.

Player 2 is also in a supergroup, but it's small and laid back. People in the group log in, hang out, bat around what to do, and maybe end up doing some missions or something. This player might also have multiple 50s, but the characters have been accumulated over a longer stretch of time, aren't optimized (except maybe one or two), and weren't created to fill any particular niche or excel at a specific function. When logged in, Player 2 tends to do game activities that aren't very demanding: maybe collecting badges, idling at the market, or soloing at their own comfortable pace. If this person does a TF, it's probably spur of the moment, either with their friends or on a PUG. Basically, they're opportunists about that sort of thing.

Both of these players invest a lot of time into the game, but, by my measure Player 2 is still very much a casual player, because they're not committing to the gameplay. In fact, Player 1 could spend less time in the game, and still be far more invested in it.

Casual players either can't be that focused and goal-driven (for example, they're prone to frequent RL interruptions or they don't have the time/patience for it) and/or they just don't want to be (maybe they're deeply dedicated to another game, like EVE, and they play CoH as a low intensity change-of-pace). Whatever the case, the more coordination, (immediate) attention, and (unbroken) time investment any given game activity demands, the less likely a casual player is going to be a participant in it.

In general, I'd say casual players are prone to solo (though not all soloists are casual) because they can just log in and do it, no matter their schedule. I'd say they're attracted to things like badge collecting and market play, because those activities don't require a lot of coordination and can be interrupted without issue. Their focus can be deep, but only for sporadic, short-lived periods (hence why they might have Mids, and might have a few tricked-out characters). If they visit the forums, they're probably strictly lurkers or they maintain a relatively shallow involvement and low profile.

And, strange as the dynamic is... as this game very much accommodates a casual approach, casual players are probably apt to spend more time on it than hardcore gamers are. So, insofar as City is concerned, I don't think time investment is a very useful measure for identifying casual play.

Oh, and as for PVP... I engage in it occasionally, when the mood strikes, either at an open PVP event or in the Arena with some friends. It factors into my character building not at all. Not even on my Stalker. Thus, I consider myself a casual PVPer.

Anywho, thanks for starting this thread. Subject's been on my mind lately, so it's nice to be able to contribute to a dialogue about it.

Why did you not tell me about this project?

All the more reason why I'd love to see it crash.

It wouldn't stay that way, of course, but it'd be novel to see it knocked off its lofty perch for a bit.

This is what I'm waiting for.

I think once all the commons are flooded the way some of the high range ones are right now, this will no longer be an issue.

Personally, I'd love to see Alchemical Silver crash.

This isn't an either/or situation. The OP started a thread about Concealment. That doesn't stop you or anyone else starting a thread about Presence or the power pools in general.

I think just about all the power pools could use some attention. I'd like to see them all expanded to 5 powers, for example. I'd like to see some sort of 'turbo boost' added to Flight. I'd like to see a 1st tier power added to Fighting that isn't an attack. I'd like to see powers like Whirlwind reworked into something that people might actually want to take. I'd like to see the various lackluster attacks that are available brought up to be on par with Air Superiority.

But this thread here is about Concealment.

I don't think anyone's saying the Concealment powers are useless. All that's being suggested is that the pool set could--and probably should--be freshened up a bit and tweaked to be a more attractive option. Stealth and Invisibility appear to be the favored targets for that.

Why on Earth is this an issue with anyone?

Didn't say it wasn't useful. I'm saying I don't think it's as useful as it probably should be, given that it's a pool power (and thus demands at least the sacrifice of a power slot and a pool choice).

Also, I'm not "dissing" Stealth. That's just silly. It's a power in a video game.

Flight would be up there for me as well, for all the reasons you mention and more.

Again... I think most of the pools could use some attention. Let me put it this way: I believe they're really showing their age.

Personally, I would put Concealment at the top of the list, and that's why this thread caught my eye. I'd have Flight up there as well. If you'd like to start a thread about Flight, by all means, go right ahead. But I'm not talking about Flight here, I'm talking about Concealment, and how it could be improved. Because that's what the thread is about.

Over the years, multiple options have been introduced that accomplish the same basic thing as the Stealth power. Clearly, that diminishes Stealth's niche, thereby dampening its usefulness.

I believe, as a pool power choice, it should be more distinctive. As making it more distinctive would just be a benefit to the game, not really sure what the issue is?

I'm also not sure how one can present:

...and...

...in the same post, and not see the contradiction.

No, to me, it's a case of presenting feedback and sharing ideas that could make the game better.

I don't actually care much if the Concealment pool changes. I do use those other options when they make sense (and I find they often make more sense than using a power slot and a pool slot on Stealth... which I'd call a design flaw).

I just think it'd be better for the game if Concealment (and other pool powers) got some developer attention. And I don't really see the point in attempting to squelch the expression of that.

I agree. I particularly like your take on Invisibility.

You're not alone. Something does seem peculiar about shard drops while soloing. For example, I can point to more than one person running several missions solo at x5 and not getting a single shard, but then running with one other person vs. less mobs and getting a few shards out of it.

May just be a fickle RNG, but that there's really fickle. I think it's worth looking into, given past issues with droprates.

For now, if you're after shards, I'd suggest at least duoing, just to be safe.

--

Re: Incarnate System

It seems okay so far, but I'm still worried.

I'd say the droprate feels just about right (as long as I'm teamed).

I don't like the introduction arc. Pacing felt off and, when contrasted against the Praetorian content and tip missions, it seemed kinda pedestrian. Given its purpose, I'm of the mind that it really shouldn't feel like the same ol' same old at all, but it very much did to me.

I've been given the impression that the arc was sort of a rush job, so some slack can be cut there, but I think it needs to be revisited and spruced up relatively soon. More Trapdoor (interesting encounter, could be designed better), less Minos (stock encounter and, considering what preceded it, ill-fitting as a finale).

I think it did succeed in making plausible a sudden upswing of "Long-Path" Incarnates.

I agree that unlocking the slot came off as a bit anticlimactic. I'd like to see something put in that more overtly marks the occasion. Could be anything, really. A temp power... a funky inspiration... but something. Were it up to me, I'd try to make it something fun but largely useless. A special Incarnate costume change emote, maybe?

As for the future... I don't know. I'm afraid that, if this system demands a large time investment, I'm going to fall way behind. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing... unless a huge power gap develops between the Haves and the Have Nots. That could be problematic.

This is a game that emphasizes and promotes having alts. The Incarnate system isn't quite running counter to that... yet. But I can easily see where it would, and that worries me.

However, there isn't enough information for me to really form an opinion either way. I've been playing this game consistently for over 6 years and, in that time, I've seen the dev team do things that I've found to be completely kookoo-nuts-out-of-touch. On the other hand, I've also seen them implement things that I considered brilliant.

It's been a mixed bag lately so, for now, I'm just keeping my fingers crossed.

So... just like everything else in the game?

That's what this arc pretty much is. I'm sorry, I didn't find either "challenge" in this arc particularly interesting or novel. The rest of it was same ol' same old.

So... more of the same, just with more hitpoints.

I do.

I don't.

I am and I do.

If "kill speed" concerned me, my 6 year old main wouldn't be a Storm/Electirc Defender... >.>

I'm sorry, I don't fit your brush-off profile at all, and I still think this arc is pants.

Maybe it's you who want things to be too easy?

I gotta say, I'm pretty surprised that you and some other old-timers around here find this arc to be at all novel.

Oh, please.

Though, now that you mention it, I would like the "design target" for this whole system officially and explicitly outlined by PS. Because it's not saying to me what it's apparently saying to you.

Guess again. I actually want that kind of content. If this is what's going to pass for it, I'm not impressed. There were more interesting things done in Praetoria arcs for lowbies.

...getting warmer...

I didn't.

Honoree was the only sticking point for me the first time through, and he was nothing new in that regard. I dealt with him as I've dealt with similar sticking points throughout the game's content at all levels, and moved on.

The last mission was just laughable.

This was not a tricky arc. It was not "tactically complex". Trapdoor was the only thing moderately interesting, and I even found that to be poorly executed.

I'm glad you found the arc engaging. Really, I am. I didn't. And not for any of the reasons you've listed. So maybe you should entertain the idea that the audience this arc has failed to connect with is much broader than you're telling yourself.

I believe this arc, and this content, could reach a much wider audience, without diluting its "design target". Moreover, I think it has to, or it's going to crash and burn... and get abandoned. And that's no good for anyone.

You get that kind of warning all over the place in this game. It very often doesn't mean squat. The impact of it has been diluted by over-use.

So no, nothing at all that clearly indicates a tougher fight. Those warnings frequently don't indicate anything of the sort (certainly didn't in the last mission of this very arc).

A clear indication would've been making it a difficult arc from the outset. A clear indication would've been not framing it as a personal story you're going at alone. A clear indication would've been a proper build-up, instead of relying entirely on the way-too-commonly-used 'you might wanna bring some friends' schtick.

That's just a cop-out covering for shoddy design. Had the arc been done properly, Grey wouldn't have had to give a canned warning. You would've already known you were going into something hair-curling, 'cuz everything leading up to it wouldn't have been a cakewalk.

The more I think about it, the more I think this should've been split into two arcs: a solo-friendly, personal journey introduction, followed by a blistering trial or mini-TF that 1. required a team of some sort and 2, required that everyone on the team completed part 1.

Anywho, one of the points I've made (that's been glossed over yet again), is that it ain't just people who struggled with this arc that don't like it.

The arc just does not seem to be making a good first impression. Given that it's the introduction to the Incarnate content, and given that PS has a fair bit invested in that system right now, I think it needs to be reworked.

And I really must stop reading this thread! >.<

*goes away 4REALZ this time*

Except he's arguing points I didn't make. So... that really didn't get anyone anywhere.

My issues have nada to do with the "challenge" and "difficulty" of this arc. My issue is that I think the arc isn't all that different from a lot of existing "vintage" content... and just kinda stinks.

And I don't understand why some people are, on the one hand, lauding it as a challenge and then, on the other, talking about how easy it was for them to do and how anyone should be able to do it. Can't eat your cake and have it too. Unless it's magic cake, I guess. But it's not.

Anywho, I didn't find it a challenge and it's "difficulty", such as it was, was pedestrian.

At this point, I have zero interest in future incarnate content. This arc has contributed to that sentiment. Therein lies part of the problem.

No, you don't.

But the fact that a lot of people seem to think you do kinda speaks to the shoddy design of the arc, I'd say.

Lemme approach this from another way...

Mission 1: You're God.
Mission 2: Standard fare. Maybe -- maybe -- you get tripped up a bit by Trapdoor... but this "challenge" isn't particularly hard to figure out... and once you have his number, he's easy to smish.
Mission 3: Standard fare... until you reach the end of the map.

Now. With everything up to this point, combined with the contact's delivery, an expectation has been established. Up to this point, there has been nothing about this arc that suggests you're dealing with anything other than the usual.

Think that might have something to do with the problems some people are having with the arc? I kinda do.

But what bothers me more than the people who get stuck? Are the people who didn't get stuck, but came away thinking, 'that wasn't fun. I don't really want to repeat that with X number of 50s.'

That ain't good.

BUT... whatever. I've put my 2 cents in. This arc was a huge disappointment for me, and not for the reasons Geko seems to think. I believe it needs to be rethought... but I'm fairly certain it's not going to be.

I also think it'll probably be made easier. Which won't really help. Sure, it'll make the flow of it more consistent, but inconsistency is only one of the issues I see with this arc. Besides, there's merit to the argument that it shouldn't be particularly easy.

Ultimately, what's scaring me is that this whole Incarnate system looks to me like it's on the failboat to disaster town. I was really hoping this arc was going to change my tune on that. It didn't. It just reaffirmed it.

Thus ends my foray into these forums for another few months, at least.

Have fun out there!