Jade_Warrior

The topic for today’s post is: level 50 content and street crime.

I believe there have been comments made in the past that there is (or was prior to recent issues) too little level 50 content, so borrowing on what an NPC said in passing what do people think about introducing an honour system. Allow me to explain further.

I believe there are two possible ways for this to work.

1 – My preferred method

Once a toon hits the big 50, the XP bars are removed, and replaced with an honour ranking (similar to the system used for arena / pvp).

For each street crime the hero stops (i.e. mugging, or vandalism) the hero is awarded honour points. To prevent mass farming of this new feature the honour points should work along the same lines as XP, i.e. defeating a -5 villain won’t give you anything.

As a hero’s honour ranking increases they are awarded titles, badges, costume parts, or even new powers (I’m thinking of giving access to the lvl 1 AT power e.g. throwing knives). For the badges they could be linked to both the honour ranking and the types of crime prevented, so there could be a set of badges for stopping muggings, and a set of badges for preventing vandalisms.

If this idea was taken forward, I’d also like to see new street crime introduced to expand on the idea above allowing more badges, such as graffiti, smash and grabs, and riots.

Just side stepping for a moment – riots – with the introduction of code for Riki Invasions and coming soon Zombie hordes, what do people think about random riots across the city? Not as a special event, just an addition to regular game play just as GM spawns already are?

2 – the other way

While talking over this idea with a friend – they suggested it might be possible to implement some of the above ideas into “day jobs”, which while it is an idea, it’s not one I prefer.

I haven’t made my mind up yet on if “day jobs” are a good idea or not – so I’m not going to go into detail here.

Now I know that this idea will not appeal to everyone, just as PvP doesn’t appeal to everyone. But that’s one thing I think is good about this suggestion, like the introduction of PvP, no-one is forced to work through this content if they don’t want to.

Finally – apologies to the CoV’ers out there – I’m not sure if this is a feature that could be adapted for CoV. If anyone has some thoughts on this please post them.

[ QUOTE ]
This thread seems abit light now...Looks like a button has been used!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry - been away for a few hours. Did something happen?

All fair points - thought it had to be along those lines.

Thanks.

Not when I've done the Shard TFs and got the power that way.

Thats what I wanted to clear up - the suggestion that there are two ways to get the power.

Correct me if I'm wrong here Tuarus.

Your idea is two fold. Yes?

1) Complete all the Shard TFs and get a power to allow a 2hr hop to another server, after which time you're pulled back "home". This power then has a 24hr cool down.

then

2) An add-on pack available at a price (like the Cyborg pack) this includes the above power and some other stuff too.

So in both cases the hop is temporary. If someone then want to move from Union to Defiant (for example) they can then pay for a full server transfer.

Hmm, I say what a spiffing idea old bean

Gets my vote!

Just a short post this time.

I may be missing something here, so more of a question then a suggestion.

Why can’t the person who opens a thread lock their own thread if the feel the need?

[ QUOTE ]
No, I took your comments as general. I merely used myself as an example as someone who posts more than he's in game. When I *am* in game (the evenings), I don't post that much!

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

[ QUOTE ]
You ever considered that some of those people (such as me), are actually posting when they're at work, and CAN'T play the game? If you ever look at my posting pattern, you'll notice the vast majority of my posts are during the weekday daytime...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have. And as it happens I'm one of those people too.

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but not everything in the game is about you / or a Nem plot. I think you'll find that no names were mentioned. I did not mean to insinuate that my comments referred to anyone person. Apologies if I wasn't clear.

[ QUOTE ]
RE: Spending 4+ hours in game to post.

That's... ah, uh, little draconian don't you think? And what with that and pre-moderating posts for the public access boards kind of against what I consider to be the principle of 'open'.

[/ QUOTE ]

An excellent post - my thanks.

I thought about the 4 hour rule because IMHO I find (or it appears) that some people spend more time in the forum then in the game, and they come across as thinking they know everyline of code in the game backwards. To make matters worse these same people do not come across in a friendly manner - they appear almost aggressive.

It appears may people got the wrong idea about my use of the term "open". It was meant to refer to a board where one did not have to be a member to post threads. Because this would entail risk to the content, I believed that all posts in that non-members forum would need approval before being displayed. I wasn't suggesting the whole forum becomes approval based (apologies if i've misunderstood anyone).

You do make some excellent points in our post, so again thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure the mods want a greater degree of control.

As for adding to the frequent suggestions if you read the post it says PM Ghost Raptor, who has been updating it, with any ideas and he'll add them if they're suitable. So if you think it should be updated let him know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your reply.

I'm not going to go into that other people may or may not want.

My post was intented to convey the potential benefits that the suggestion had.

I have noted your commnets on the post being updated.

However my point may have been missed. I read that post when I first came to the forum, but I've not looked at it since, because the last post post was by someone who hasn't been around for some time.

Maybe one of our moderators could remove the post, and re-post it under their own name?

[ QUOTE ]
There is a similiar system already in place with the "Frequent Suggestions". No-one really reads it though, people just start their own threads anyway to discuss things we've discussed loads of times already.

I don't think the mods want to start deciding what we can and cannot discuss as well, as long as its reasonable debate and not a flame-fest

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your comments.

My suggestion was to put in place a more structured systems, one that allows the mods a greater degree of control, while still allowing expression.

However I take your point on board. Given that the post in question is over two years old, might not now be a good time to update it?

[ QUOTE ]
Locking off topics entirely serves no useful purpose, while it would cancel out all the repeated demands and cries for things which have been refused (usually with a sound explanation) it would also prevent any future new possible changes which had previously not been put forward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your comments.

Apologies - it seeams I may not have been clear. My proposal was that threads on topics that the mods don't want a discussion on would be created with the OP being a mod explaining the case why it's not open for discussion. The thread would then be locked.

If the situation changes the thread could be unlocked and the discussion commenced.

If a forum member has a request for a discussion on the subject they could always go to the mods and ask them to unlock the thread. That way if the mod feel it's worth exploring it can be done so, if the mod thinks it's likely to start an unwanted thread they can politely refuse.

Thank you for your thought(s).

[ QUOTE ]
You REALLY don't like it that people disagree with you, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Off-topic post & Personal attack

What are your views on Pre-approved suggestions for the forum?

Recent events have got me thinking. Have we reached a stage now that only suggestions which have been “pre-approved” can be discussed?


I started a thread yesterday which held some suggestions about how it might be possible to improve the forums.


Seems some individuals took umbrage at the idea that the forums could be improved, or that it might be nice to have forums available for potential gamers (i.e. not current game members boards – or as I called them “open”), or the forum polls. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough. Some people did take the time to produce a thought out reply to the points I raised, so thanks for your replies.


Yes, I have also been fighting the fight over the issues (real or imaged) of declining server populations, server-less environments, and a server transfer tool for EU>US. Not going to go into these again (see the other threads for details).


So I may have picked up on “inflammatory” subjects, however they way some people have reacted as surprised me. Some reactions could be classed as “knee-jerk”, while others seem to point towards the poster having a persecution complex. I’ve even seen one post where the poster seems to think they are a board moderator when there not. I’m sure our board moderators have better things to do then read through posts from people who should know better. No this thread is not an attack on those forum users.


All of these begs the question (to me anyway) of if the “suggestions” board needs “pre-approved” topics for discussion.


I could almost believe the board moderators feel this is the way to go given the fact they started a “quality of life” topic themselves.


So the topic here becomes, do we limit what can and cannot be discussed here. FFM pointed out that these are private boards, so the moderators have final control (sorry I can’t seem them as metatron’s all wings and halos). For example:

Topic: Servers – closed
Topic: Powers – open
Topic: New zones: closed
Topic: Costumes – open
Etc…


Surly this would be of benefit to the moderators.


Topics they want to avoid, such as server merges, or DXP events, could be avoided saving them massive amounts of time reviewing “pointless” threads. While at the same time it allows them to focus our collective creativeness in the direction that they want us to look at, new zones, new powers, etc.


Personally I believe that any attempt to limit the topics in the forums would be a mistake.


But I do stand by my comments that the forums could do with improving/updating, e,g,
• Poll based threads
• Non-member board


So what’s the point of this thread? Well, to get people thinking. The changes I’ve suggested above (around topic only threads) could easily be implemented by the CoX team if they wished. If we can’t discuss options to improve all aspects of the game (yes that includes server transfers / merges) in a sensible manner, we could find ourselves with limited boards in the future. True this is all guess work, I’ve no idea what our moderators and the development team have in mind for the forums, but I know the back-end software running these boards is capable of limiting topics.


So, no to pre-approved topics. But this doesn’t mean that I am going to stop picking up the subjects that forum users and the moderators would rather be left alone.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or the Portuguese ones for that matter...

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point..We have a large Scandinavian community also so do they feel in the minority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's not a server merge we need but a server split?

Nice to see so many people missing a point of a topic all at once.

Never mind.

GhostRaptor (or other mod) - Please lock this thread. I think it's been done to death now.

A good reply - some points of to be noted there by all.

I was hoping to sitmulate suggestions on how things could be better.

A wise man once said "Nothing is perfect, everything could be improved".

[ QUOTE ]
Is this April Fools day or smt

/unsigned

[/ QUOTE ]

No - it was an attempt at making the forums a better place.

Failed that objective then.

Okay folks I’m back with another thread to get the little grey cells working overtime.

As before I don’t expect replies to this thread, in fact I’d prefer that no one replied so it doesn’t descend into a flame war of posts and the point becoming lost as people lose there tempers.

So moving on.

I’m sure those of us who have been around in game for a while will be aware of the limitation place on trial accounts, i.e.

• Trial accounts will no longer be able to use Global chat channels
• Trial Accounts cannot email other players
• Trial Accounts may not level past 13
• Trial Accounts can only have 50k influence
• Trial Accounts cannot invite players to team
• Trial Accounts may join teams, but not invite other players
• Trial Accounts may not join SuperGroups.

Among others.

I think it is time that limitations be introduced to the forums too.

We all know that you must have a game account to register to post in the forum. Which is an excellent idea, if somewhat limiting. Therefore it’s time for an overall.

I’d suggest opening up a board to allow anyone to post, even if they don’t have a game account. This would enable people who are thinking about joining the game the option to ask questions of the current player base. I would think that this “open” board would need to operate differently to the current boards for a number of reason (more on them later). All posts to the “open” board (either new threads or replies) would have to be moderated prior to posting. This would prevent threads being;
• de-railed
• spammed to death
• descending into flame wars
while at the same time making sure that potential new player have a positive first impression of the game / player base.

In addition to the “open” board be available to everyone, the other boards should be hidden, until logged in. We all know that some threads can get a little heated at times, which is not good for new players to see.

Next, “adult” only boards. I don’t have the figures, so this is based on personal experience, but I believe there should be an “adult” board, where some of the forum rules are a little more relaxed. For example, users can have adult conversations, discuss politics, relationships, love life, jobs etc. Let the forum become a place where people can turn to for help and advice. We have a lot of users, and therefore a lot of life experience. We can learn from each other, and help each other when there is no one else to turn to.

Now the limitations, which is were I started.

I know the forum is part of our extended community, but I would like to see posters limited to actual players, i.e. people who
• Have an active account (not lapsed)
• Have spent time (4hrs+) in game in the past month

I’m not sure how many of the people reading this, but PERSONALLY I am growing increasingly frustrated with people posting in threads who spend more time lurking in the forum then they do in game. They appear to post in threads thinking they know everything about the game, and that if anyone disagrees with them or asks for something the other then what is being developed they get shot down.

I’ve lost track of the number of times these lurkers have “forced” me to abandon a thread. I say forced because if I didn’t leave the thread I would end up getting banned.

I would love to spend more time in the forums, discussing the game, and making suggestions to improve it, but these lurkers have put me off. And if they have done that to me, how many others are also effected? I believe that these people who claim to “speak for the masses” have no proof that they do, just as I have no proof that they don’t. Instead I believe that posters should stick to their own point of views, and not claim to be speaking on behalf of others. I know that might be a bit like the pot calling the kettle black but hey ho…

Is it time for poll questions to be introduced? Would this allow more people to take part in discussions, without having to post “/signed” etc.. I think polls would be a good idea.

Finally, de-railers.

How many threads have been de-railed by posters posting random stuff. It’s time to get tough with them. I believe that if a mod spots someone re-railing a thread with comments not related to the topic, that person should be banned from the forums for a month. Repeated offenders banned for six months.

Oh – almost forgot. Brown Nosers. Those people who seem to think they’ll get xp for pointing out where people have broken the forum rules. Newsflash…that’s the mods job, not yours! If you think someone has done something wrong, send a PM to either that person or the mod, nothing is gained by making a post out of it. On a personal point each time I have “broken the rules” I have done so on purpose, and I have NEVER received a warning from a RedName, in fact the last PM I had from a RedName on a subject that some thought broke the rules was a “thank you”, so our rules don’t appear to be set in stone. Repeating them doesn’t make anyone look big.

Hmm… maybe I lost the plot a little here and there, turned out not so much a limitation on the forum, more “time for a make over”.

Tuarus - seems your tread might have become de-railed. Apologies.

Back on track - you have a great idea here.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's some news for you. We're on a private message board; there's NO free speech at all here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then ban me.

Oh wait. You have no power over me.

[ QUOTE ]
I remember when they first announced the server transfer option, they had a warning stating that in the far future, a serverless system may be implemented with everyone in the same instance. This was just to cover themselves should people complain about wasted money on transfers.

So there are no announced plans, and quite probably no unannounced plans, but they have reserved the right to do so later on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point.

So they've not ruled it out.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, the red names are like the metatron, and when they speak, it's not a suggestion, it is "It shall be thus"

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't our RedName in the EU boards just mods? No offense guys.

And as mods - whould they not have a set of "standard" replys to common questions?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the people who want a Server Merge/Transfer are a minority, not a majority. Majority > Minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow... you've polled every player who has an EU account in under 30min and produced the results into one sentence.

Ever thought about running to be an MP?

Oh, btw. Yes a RedName has spoken, but at the same time there is that warning you get when buying a server transfer. Kind of mixed messages.

No need to throw your toys out of your cot. This is just my opinion.