Kenuck

(Forgive me if this has been brought up before. According to the forums, it's been 4 years since I was last here, and I don't have the time or patience to sift through everything I've missed.)

Question: How can we increase game population and, by extension, cash flow? (Which, btw, translates to more money being able to be budgeted for development.)

Suggestion:

1. Add a feature that allows people to queue for pug mission teams. Change the code for the radio and paper contacts to give people an option to sign up for randomly-put-together teams of 8 players of roughly the same level, assign them a random mission, and kick in some kind of team-teleport thing to bring them all to the mission entrance. (The "must be in the same zone" issue won't be an issue, because you'll only be able to sign up for (and remain in) a queue if you're in your level-appropriate zone.) I would strongly recommend allowing cross-server queuing.

In other words, I'm suggesting that COH/COV adopt a "dungeon-finder" system. There. I said it. I don't know if it can even be done, but everything below hinges on it.

2. Make the core games (COH/COV) free-to-play. No restrictions on levels or ATs. That includes the Epics.

3. Expand and enhance the cash shop items. Add more costume packs. Vanity Pets. Instanced player housing. Whatever you think will make you money.


tl;dr version:

1. Add a cross-server, zone-specific mission-finder.
2. Go from a subscription/cash-shop model to a f2p/cash-shop model.

Agree or disagree, and why?

[ QUOTE ]
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever. - Anonymous

[/ QUOTE ]
10/10

[ QUOTE ]
Player 1: Hey, was Statesman online before?
Player 2: Yeah, he said you're a jackass!

[/ QUOTE ]

An excellent guide. I've only been to one raid with my F/F Tanker. Haven't been to another because, frankly, I felt like a "fifth wheel". I may start coming to more raids, though, so I can learn what to do.

[ QUOTE ]
As for assigning the badges to those with the souvenirs. That -might- (in the biggest sense of the word) be possible, but it will have to wait until some of the engineers get their heads up from City of Villains to take a look at this. Rest assured that I am looking into this option (which I know doesn't satisfy everyone).

[/ QUOTE ]
Just as an aside...

I'm going to keep this quote handy, and pull it out the next time somebody starts to use the "CoV and CoH have separate teams, so it's not CoV's fault that CoH doesn't have any new content" argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Ya know, I usually support the devs, and tell others to calm down etc etc etc...but more and more I am having less and less reason to give you guys the benefit of the doubt.

Between the phase shift thing and now this badge thing..its just pure laziness on the part of the developers because we KNOW that they can be datamined. Most of any respect I had left for the developers is going away slowly.

I have to agree with one of the posters, stop telling us whats fun and start asking...

[/ QUOTE ]
Couldn't have said it better. QFT.

TopDoc:

I've been following your thread with interest, and tonight I rolled up a Kin/Dark on Protector. Hypershade is sitting at level 6 and has joined the Tank Mages channel.

I have a couple of mid-30s heroes (and a few mid-20s heroes) on Protector, so I should be able to funnel some influence to the SG if necessary. I'll look for you the next time I'm on.

Really looking forward to seeing what this type of SG can do.

[ QUOTE ]
(Sigh) Getting tired of MMORPG's undergoing drastic change becasue of PvP issues.

[/ QUOTE ]
This takes me back to the days before the game went live.

There was a huge outcry from some of the posters because they learned that there would be no PvP upon release. Dozens of threads were started; petitions were signed; threats were made.... you get the idea.

There was an equally large outcry from posters who, because of their past experiences with other MMOs, knew that if PvP were implemented in the game along with PvE, then there would be -hell- to pay when it came to balancing.

Sadly, it seems that we were right.

To the other poster who asked, "Why now?".

Well, this is Issue 5. What was introduced in Issue 4?

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say the answer is no. Because if people used the Dev Tracker they would know that ...

1) The VAST majority of players play missions and don't hunt.
2) Less than 1% of the players post in the forums.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know, I'm getting really sick of seeing this "1%" bs quoted over and over again. Statesman stuck his foot in his mouth when he said that, and he wedged it in even further when he came to the boards and said that it was "actually less than 1%".

Do you know who that "1%" is? The vast majority of the people who were posting on these boards when Statesman said that were the very same people who had been supportive of this game and the development team for 3 years before release! The beta testers, the fans, the people who took the time to design their own web sites in support of the game.

THAT'S who made up that "1%".

And Statesman brushed them all aside when he stated in an interview (while trying to defend the game from some of the negative feedback that it was getting on the forums) that the posters only made up 1% of the players, and that most of the people who were complaining didn't know what they were talking about because they "hadn't even reached level 20 yet".

I'm sorry... but I find it difficult to be supportive of anybody who would willingly belittle his biggest fans when he gets cornered with questions he has no answers to. The remainder of the development team, to their credit, has done an exemplary job in trying to undo the "damage" that Statesman's lapse of wisdom and forethought did.

And, in answer to your question, I (and I'm certain many of the posters to this thread) read the dev tracker on a daily basis. We know full well what has been said and by whom. Many of us just don't agree with it.

[ QUOTE ]
But I have to say either people just aren't getting it, or they aren't trying to get it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd have to say you're right.

[ QUOTE ]
The replay value of this game is what makes quick leveling speed a GOOD THING. I have a level 50. I also have a level 48. Neither are FOTM builds, I just have a lot of time on my hands as of late. When the 48 hits 50, I'll roll up another character of a different AT and play that. But if Statesman wants to slow things down even more, cancelation may be a better and more entertaining option. Why roll another character if I'm going to grind again, even slower??? Grind's already slowed down far too much from release, as far as I'm concerned, which hurts reply value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good comment. There are 137 possible AT combinations in this game. If all ATs (and combinations therein) were equally fun to play and levelled at a (relatively) even pace, then the replayability of this game would be enormous. Even if it only took two months of casual play to reach 50 with any one AT, if the game were fun (and the grind were less painful) many, many players would stay with CoH just so they could experience the game through the eyes of a new build. As it is (and as it's shaping up to be), getting to 50 is a painful grind; doing it with more than one character is boredom incarnate.

To Statesman: If you want players to stick with the game, then make it fun to play. Make the goals (which we need many more of) reachable. Give us the opportunity and freedom to experience the game the way that WE want to experience it, and stop trying to force us into your "vision". Let us (all ATs) be heroes. This isn't a tabletop PnP roleplaying game. You're not a Dungeon Master.

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen it in Taskforces. You are part of an 8 person team, by mission 3 you're down to 6, and my mission 5 it's somewhere between 2 and 5 people. But, that smaller group can usually take on the same challenge that the bigger group couldn't. We've all been in the group where a mission was taken with 8 people in the group, there was a wipeout and 3 leave, the mission is still set to having 8 players yet the smaller group of 5 manages the threat without a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, this is a common misconception. Mobs in indoor missions (and task force missions) spawn dynamically. When you enter a mission, only the first few mob groups are spawned. Those spawns take the number of players on your team into account. There are no mobs at the back half of the mission (or upper floors, depending on the layout) at this point. Mobs only spawn once your group approaches and, even then, they only spawn within a certain radius of your group.

So, if your group consists of 8 players when you enter, then the mob spawns will take that into account, and the first few spawns you encounter will be quite difficult (at least 2 lts and maybe 2 bosses per spawn, in addition to 6 or more minions).

If, however, your group gets wiped, and 3 or 4 players quit the team, only the mob spawns that were there when you left will be the same. Any new spawns (at the back of the mission, or on the upper floors) will adjust themselves to the new group size.

So your perception that a smaller group is better at handling missions set for larger groups is not quite correct. It only seems that way. If you want to test it for yourself, go in with a group of 8 players and, when you encounter your first mob spawn, count the number of minions, lts, and bosses. Then have 3 or 4 people quit the team and leave. Continue on until you encounter another mob spawn and count the minions, lts, and bosses again. You'll find that the makeup of the mob spawn has changed, based upon the number of players who are presently on your team.

I assume it's done this way for several reasons. For one, it keeps the server load to a minimum. Having a mission automatically create and keep track of hundreds of mobs as soon as you enter would cause the server to slow to a crawl. (Multiply that by 100's of missions and you have a problem with servers crashing constantly.) Another good (depending upon your point of view) reason would be to prevent single heroes from creating a 3 or 4 person team so that a mission spawned the appropriate number of mobs for that team, and then having the other players leave so that he/she could solo a much more difficult mission for more xp. (Hopefully the promised mission difficulty sliders will address this.)

(Devs: feel free to jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, it seems the plan is to make it such that you must group to take on white con mobs and get even LESS xp than you get today. Thus the future of this game seems to be forced grouping with terrible XP. Soloing will be possible, but your XP will be next to nothing. Missions will become impossible as the even con mobs and bosses won't be doable by a solo player at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I got at all. He seemed to be pretty clear that a player should be able to solo three even con minions. The difficulty of many enemies 30+ is simply too easy, and taking out 3 of them is very easy for a solo player. The plan is to boost the difficulty of those 30+ enemies, but still keeping the balance of approximately three minions to one player.

[/ QUOTE ]
The whole "3 white cons per hero" garbage has me choked. Please explain to me how my lvl 27 Fire/Energy Blaster, who can take down an entire group of orange minions in two shots, is going to be effected by this.

Are they going to make the mobs so much harder to kill that I'll have no choice but to fight lower level mobs? (Thereby nerfing EVERYONE.) Or are they going to nerf my "Build Up - Aim - AoE - AoE" combo so that it does less damage? (Thereby nerfing Blasters (and probably everyone else who uses Build Up)).

I'm curious to hear what your (and others') opinion is. Many people on this thread are simply gushing all over Statesman's comments on this thread. I just want to know if ANY of you have even given his comments any real thought.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is closer to the spirit of my statement - but the crux here is "decent rate of speed." Some Archetypes do it faster than others. Controllers, and to a degree Defenders & Tankers, solo slowly. That's totally acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Totally acceptable? To whom? Not the players.

[/ QUOTE ]

To his customers it will be. If its not acceptable to you, then you don't have to be a customer. Its perfectly acceptable for you to find a system you like better.

This isn't a flame, just a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't been reading the boards much, I take it. The fact that the different ATs advance at different rates is THE most talked about concern amongst the players who frequent the boards.

I challenge your assumption that this will be okay with "his customers". It isn't. It won't be.

[ QUOTE ]
This is closer to the spirit of my statement - but the crux here is "decent rate of speed." Some Archetypes do it faster than others. Controllers, and to a degree Defenders & Tankers, solo slowly. That's totally acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Totally acceptable? To whom? Not the players.

[ QUOTE ]
We have gone back and removed the multi-tasking missions from Story Arcs and multi-stage missions. They still remain as “one-off” missions with some of your Contacts however. If you encounter one of these and you do not wish to do it, simply take and complete the other mission choice your contact has. When you return, you will be presented with two more (random) missions to choose from. Our goal is not to prevent you from completing Story Arcs or Multi-stage missions you started as a solo character, and we feel that this best accomplishes that with the system we have in place right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good job. Well done.

Simply awesome.

You have raised the bar for COH Videos. Again.