Samuel_Tow

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how did this become a cov vs Coh Discussion, we have other threads for that

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

*edit*
Just to save a bunch of people the effort of having to hit "Quote."

[ QUOTE ]
But just once try entertaining the thought that the large number of people who disagree with your notions have a point with regards to what the larger population of games enjoy/are interested in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I understand that many people do not agree with me. That is a notion that I've entertained for... What is it now... 15 years? Thereabout. For about as long as I've had friends, more or less. Se believe me, I know. That does not mean, however, that I have to agree with it, specifically when it's all a matter of opinion as discussed.

Furthermore, what I'm debating isn't the validity of other people's opinions, as I'm well aware many people like what CoV has to offer. What I am saying is more along the lines that CoV nevertheless actually offers very LITTLE in terms of actual content and has seen very little in terms of development time as compared to CoH. I have my gripes and my reasons, but the bottom of my argument is that while the new stuff CoV did "right" are no reason why at least some of the old stuff that CoH did right couldn't have crossed over.

I've said this many times - I don't like CoH multi-zoning and I don't want it retrofitted into CoV. But by the same token, I want SOME zoning in CoV, because currently there is a flat none. I don't specifically like all of the stories in CoH, but some are good and follow a pattern that is completely and utterly non-existent in CoV, and I see no reason for this.

That's all I'm trying to say. I appreciate the new things CoV did, but I don't see why all the things CoH did were outright dropped when many were worth keeping.

I'm obviously not explaining something well. I realise this comes off as "What you like is wrong and you don't know nothin'!" but that's not my intent at all. Like or dislike the new additions, I do not see why they had to override EVERYTHING. I don't believe in changing things just for the sake of changing them and I don't believe in changing things completely and utterly. Old designs can sometimes be good, and even when they're not, they still provide a change of pace from just the same thing over and over again.

To my eyes, CoV tried to do a lot, changed a lot it didn't need to, but didn't actually have enough content worked into it to be a separate game. Penny-pinching passed for good design when zones were unified and travel reduced, while at the same time fortuitously making for fewer zones that needed to be designed and less of an organic means of travel between them being required. And because that seems to address a problem players have outlined, everyone sees it as a brilliant design decision, whereas I see it as a move to save a buck on extra zones.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if CoH is one extreme with its problems, swinging all the way over into the opposite extreme is a bad way to solve these problems, if only because it solves some problems but not others and then brings its own problems on top of that. A comprehensive "fixing" of CoH only where needed and only in moderation would have been the smart thing in my opinion. A "let's change everything" approach wasn't.

[ QUOTE ]
I guarantee if they introduced a "port directly from mission to mission upon completion" button in the next issue, we'd be hearing how lame it was to have to exit and use travel at all within a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suggestions like these are why I say it's a bad design decision. A few months after CoV launched, the question was posed - what's the purpose of zones, anyway? You never need to leave them, you barely need to travel inside them, there's nothing you necessarily need to see and there's certainly nothing you need to do in there. So why NOT allow people to just port between missions? That was suggested on the CoV board, and more than once.

And yes, it is bad design. Just as giving children all the sugar they crave is a bad decision. If my time here has proven one thing to me, it's that players don't KNOW what they want. There are plenty of things they THINK they want, but then when they get them proceed to complain to no end. You see, not everything has the effect it seems it will have.

People ask for a whole bunch of things. If you'd kowtow to every demand, then people would simply pay other people to play their game for them. A lot of those "better" things undermine what made the game good to begin with and what gave it a spirit worth sticking around for. You know, as opposed to the WalMart of MMOs where you subscribe, buy your jollies and then leave to go back home and play something else.

It is my opinion that making the game TOO easy, TOO simple, TOO fast and so forth is a bad design decision. It makes people go "Oh! Cool!" for a few moments, yes. But CoV proved that a game cannot survive on just that. Despite it being reputedly so much better, it has no more than half the players at CoH has at any given time. This tells me that simply handing the players everything they want on a silver platter is not a sure-fire road to success.

I stand by my statements. Restricting players to having to look at the damn Hell Fogre and nothing else for 10 levels straight is not a good idea. Rendering the very existence of outdoor zones obsolete is not a good idea. Making story arcs that don't tell a story whatsoever is not a good idea. CoV may be a crowning achievement for those who actually like it, but on the grand scheme of things it's little more than a watered-down version of CoH set in a perpetual ghetto, built out of exactly three colours, forcing extreme location monotony and, for all of its supposed enemy diversity, overfocusing on Longbow, the Circle of Thorns and Arachnos. It strikes me as a game not designed to be good so much as designed to sell well, quality be damned.

And as far as my eye can see, it is.

Keep in mind I own a CoV account and have probably over 2000 hours invested into it, in addition to it being what I'm playing right now, so I'm not ragging on a game I don't like. I do like it and I do play it a lot. But IF we get another expansionalone, then I'd like it to fix problems in a smart way, instead of the directly obvious way, because that's oftentimes about the worst solution to a problem.

[ QUOTE ]
I also totally don't see it as having had design shortcuts. Instead I see it as learning from CoH's mistakes. All that "content" that CoH shipped with? Lost on most players and typically void of characters in-zone. CoV shipped with more story arcs than CoH did, it made you travel less to get to them, and it cut out a ton of fluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Bad design shortcuts" was creating a grand total of 6 zones (Mercy, Oaks, Cap, Sharkhead, Nerva, St. Martial, +1 if you count I7) and cramming those full of important stuff, making the gameworld as a whole feel incredibly small. Why make two zones 2/3s of the size when you could cram everything into one? Except then players always see the same places. How many people actually LIKE spending time in Sharkhead Island?

"Bad design shortcuts" was keeping everyone contained within the same zone for 10 levels a stretch where City of Heroes mixes things up a bit.

"Bad design shortcuts" was adding in twice the story arcs but each a third of the length and each throwing out interesting information only as an afterthought (Oh, before I forget, the Rikti are humans. You learn something new every day!). Good storytelling and good stories replaced by short arcs just so there are more of them, no single one-off missions in addition to that, no hunt missions for those who like them...

CoV may or may not have had things actually designed better, but it shipped with a lot less actual done on it than the original CoH, and a whole bunch else just copied whole-sale from CoH. As an expansion, it was very rich and rewarding. As a standalone game, it's very, very lacking. Let's hope that if we DO get a paid expansion, it's a real expansion that knows what it's trying to achieve.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe that means we'll get more stuff for free with each Issue. Though I just fear it means either a CoH 2 or another paid expansion, meaning we still won't get much more per Issue. And if the expansion adds as much as CoV did, then that, my friends, is a bum deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok Samuel_Tow, rather than state my utter, complete and incredulous disagreement with that statement (oops... too late), I will instead ask you to explain how you come to it. I can't recall another paid expansion to any MMORPG ever offering even a portion of the new content that came with CoV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying CoV did less than other MMOs have with their expansions and obvious I felt it was good enough to buy it. But it was billed as a standalone game which shipped with not a third of the content the original CoH had at Launch, to say nothing of had when CoV actually came out. That's why you see villain players continually complaining that they don't have as much as heroes do - because it's true. And a "less is more" philosophy doesn't quite cut it when the game quite honestly has barely enough for one go, where the idea was to have so much you could never do it all with a single character.

And that was supposed to be treated as a standalone game. Pshaw! That's why it's a bum deal - because it was an exercise in penny-pinching and design shortcuts. I'd rather see them focus on Issues that add more things or things that have been deemed harder than work on paid expansions. Frankly, for the money they cost, paid expansions aren't all that much bang for the buck.

[ QUOTE ]
...
we've still got Posi, Bab's, Castle, WW, GW, et at
...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I feel responsible for causing people to call Back Alley Brawler "Babs"

[ QUOTE ]
Which is exactly why the game's probably going to crash and burn.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make sense. The game's being moved over to a better place with more money and with the entire development team still in tact, under management that promises not to meddle. If that's what makes games fail, then just what in the name of Cake makes them succeed?

Furthermore, I did note in the piece you quoted that this move is most likely GOOD for the game. Cryptic obviously (an' it shows) didn't put all their effort towards CoH. Things like "it would take too long" and "we'd need to cut other things, then" tell me exactly that. Expanding the development team is what usually solves these problems, so that's good as well.

No, what I said is that I'm surprised that Cryptic in general and Jack in particular would be willing to let go their baby, the game that "made" them, to focus on Lord knows what else. It feels like a mistake and a cop-out on THEIR end, even if it's BETTER for the game.

I don't enjoy having my words twisted into DOOOM!!! when I clearly said quite the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]
They cut Rick Dakan loose (didn't he pre-date Jack?) and they also completely changed the AT system from design to go-live, so in the past they've shown that they are willing to make big directional changes. Be interesting to see where they go in the future and how successful they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, they have, but from what I've understood, it's always been for the good of their creations. Abandoning City of Heroes to other people (which is what this is) still strikes me as a something more than a big decision. I know it may well be better for the game AND better for Cryptic's other projects at the same time, but it still strikes me as going a little too far in looking for success.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Jack just meant that he was one of the first hires?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the quote from the Statesman that keeps ringing in my head is "Positron founded Cryptic with me." though I honestly have no real evidence other than rotten memory to back this up.

And I WAS pretty close to Rick Dakan's name, wasn't I?

One thing that only now just sunk in is that Positron, Matt Miller, is shipping out to NCsoft and leaving Cryptic behind. We've all seen Jack say things about him like "We founded Cryptic together." so that comes off as a bit of a system shock. What IS going on in cryptic that they're willing to sell out their baby and go of one of their founding fathers? I'm not looking for DOOOM!!! here, it just seems like a pretty big thing.

On the flip side, City of Heroes has already lost one lead designer back in a time before release. Going off memory, was his name Peter Duncan? I seem to remember something like that. Anyway, he's the lead developer who left before the AT system was introduced and who was eventually replaced by the Statesman. Just saying - a change in management and leadership has already happened to the game once.

Totally irrelevant and redundant, but here's to hoping that because the original CoH team jumps ship with the intellectual property, then perhaps the original CoH design will carry over with them, but on a bigger scale. And let's just hope they'll have the say in perpetuating that design.

PlayNC don't exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to making games worth playing, I'll agree, but one thing they DO have a good track record with is updating games in the spirit in which they were designed. Sure, Lineage II is the very definition of grind. But that didn't suddenly happen out of thin air. It was designed to be the definition of grind. City of Heroes has been designed as an entirely different beast altogether, and one can only hope the big boys upstairs have the smarts to keep it that way.

First thing I thought was "OK, now that is bad news!" It didn't help that the whole press release tried to convince me things were going to be OK, we'd all be fine and, hey, things will actually be better! And it tried REALLY hard! And as police investigators will tell you, there are two kinds of people - those who are trying to tell you what happened and those who are trying to convince you that this is what happened. Well it certainly seems like the press release was trying to convince me, and trying hard.

But that's just the nature of press releases, I suppose. Like ads, their goal is to convince as much as it is to inform, so I may not want to look into it too deeply. There's likely nothing there to see, at least nothing that wasn't present in every other press release since man discovered fire and pay-per-view television.

My main concerns have already been addressed here in one way or another, but let me lay them out anyway.

First and foremost, the Lineage-isation of CoH. Oh, sure, PlayNC won't turn CoH into Lineage. That would be stupid. But I've seen my fair share of Korean grindfest MMOs, and Lineage II stands as kind of a leader in that field. I can't help but think that development may well shift from that of creative, but risky design which sees innovation and additions based on what would move the game forward, into that of adding "what sells best." Which, as people have recently debate, means loot, raids, extra levels and grind. Not good, really, and I'm not sure it would be worth the increased audience it may or may not draw.

On the plus side, though, there does appear to be a drive to expand and extend the development team for the game and its funding. Maybe a bright future still lies ahead for CoH and maybe we'll finally break out of the "too much work" mantra and eventually get some of the more complicated and time-consuming changes we've been denied so far. Maybe that means we'll get more stuff for free with each Issue. Though I just fear it means either a CoH 2 or another paid expansion, meaning we still won't get much more per Issue. And if the expansion adds as much as CoV did, then that, my friends, is a bum deal.

I'm cautiously-optimistic about this. The game was not handed over to other people - the development team seems to have just switched buildings and banners. The game is now being funded by a company that, for all intents and purposes, seems to plain have more money to burn. Unlike before, there seems to be a drive to "do something more" to the game, suggesting good things may be coming. If only the PlayNC people can resist making sweeping changes to the game and trying to optimize or overhaul it in any way for the sake of better sales, then maybe there will be a light at the end of the tunnel.

Third time lucky

[ QUOTE ]
I care, Sam. I care.
(Especially that bit regarding the cattle chute that is the rogue islands. That one is stuck in my craw these days. Need to get a waterpik or something to clean it out. Might be below the gumline, dammit!)
**We now return you to this thread's originally programmed slug-fest**

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually my main gripe with CoV, above and beyond everything else. The game's evilnessnessness level is just off the charts, but not in any specific way. It's just sort of... Everywhere. I recently read an interview with War Witch about how they didn't want the Rogue Isles to be just an evil version of Paragon City. The problem is that that's just what they've ended up with.

Paragon City isn't some shining metropolis of goodness and virtue. Maybe Atlas Park is. Maybe Steel Canyon is. Maybe Founders' Falls is. But King's Row isn't. Take a trip through Independence Port and tell me how good it is. Go live in Brickstown and see if you can keep your balcony free of escaped convicts for a day. And that's before we talk about Terra Volta or Dark Astoria or Eden.

Paragon City isn't a seamlessly bright and happy place. The Rogue Isles, however, are a seamlessly depressing, run-down slum. I don't mind evil, degradation and darkness, but there's just TOO much of it in the game to where it begins to wear. And wear not because it's all so horrible, but because there's no variety.

Let's hope CoV gets some more civilized zones.

[ QUOTE ]
This is how everyone is treated on forums, Sam. So at least it's a universal "unfairness". Not just you.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, I have a tendency to be melodramatic So that "they're all against me" sentiment came off a bit more... Sentimental than it was intended. I not so much trying to victimize myself here as to point out that arguments can sometimes be rather one-sided. Complaining that the game is changing on you is OK sometimes but not OK at other times, and all it really depends on is how he who writes and he who reads feel at that particular time. In general, I try to avoid "just because" justifications for making and maintaining arguments, as those are rather inconsistent, so moving away from a perceived goal was not something I wanted to acknowledge.

As Nether points out, however, this goal is altogether too real and not quite as perceived as I had grown to believe, so I'm much more inclined to accept it now than I was before. I'm still not quite prepared to like it, but them's the breaks.

On the note of a specific genre, I'd like to give you a bit of background. Of all the strategy games I've ever played, the one I've liked the most by far and wide has been Empire Earth. Of course, it would have been a much more successful game if it were... You know, a good game, rather than an Age of Empires knockoff at first and then a Rise of Nations knockoff for Empire Earth 2. Now they're making a third version, so fingers crossed.

What this game had going for it, however, was the fact that it spanned from the early stone age to the distant future, starting with stone caves and twig huts and ending with space travel, towering mechs, tanks and robots. The works, as they say. It didn't really do much of anything better than any other strategy game. Combat was fairly straightforward and the detail levels pretty far away from any kind of simulation. Just about every other strategy game from every epoch was better in some way. StarCraft, WarCraft, the C&C games, the Warhammer 40 000 games... Most everything. But not a single other game had, or even has to this day, just as much... Stuff, I suppose, as Empire Earth. Sometimes doing a lot of stuff is just as important as doing one thing good.

And that's why I like CoH so much. Oh, sure, it may not have the deep and involving crafring of EQ, the environment and background of WoW, epic items of Lineage and so forth... But it has so, so many things that whatever imperfections any one particular aspect may have are more than made up by the sheer power of the framework we exist in. To me, the more the stuff we can make in this game, don't matter where it comes from, the better the game is.

Obviously that's just my take, but it's where I'm coming from.

That would be as conclusive as it gets, Nether. I stand corrected.

[ QUOTE ]
And Sam, it's totally crazy to claim this game was concieved and promoted as anything but an homage to four color comics in the Western tradition. It's clear they don't want to alienate fans of other genres, but the game was never promoted as a nebulous 'choose your own adventure' GURPS system. It's always been marketed as a SUPERHERO game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never "claimed" anything. I merely stated my understanding of the situation. I'm not doubting anyone, I just want to see an official source that says what you guys are saying. That's not mistrust, that's simple logic. I believe something, you tell me something else and I just want to see something official. The way I figure it, if this really IS the official standpoint, then records of that shouldn't be hard to find. That I can't find them is probably my lack of searching skills, but asking for an official source in general should not be a big problem.

Why am I asking for this? Because we all seem to be quoting each other and quoting our idea of what this or that should be. But I've seen official standpoints misquoted and those misquotes perpetuated through group memory, so I've been conditioned to be sceptic of facts that are widely-known. If it's widely-known, then finding something official on it shouldn't be hard, right?

[ QUOTE ]
See I can't blame people at all for that. This is the one and only comic book themed MMO on the market, and this is a primary reason for play to many. Seeing them want to maintain that theme is no surprise to me at all, even to the point of aggression- I wouldn't support being rabid about it, but when gamers like a game due to theme, seeing others push to move their primary reason for being here off the map can be disconcerting, or at least move one to say "Why not go play a game which features that instead of trying to change the one we enjoy?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet that didn't lend me any credence when I complained about raids, Inventions, Hamidon enhancements, Super Groups, CoV's corralled zones design, unlockable costume options and so on and so forth. I came to this game, as I've said before, because it was a good game with a wide variety of concepts. It was simple, it was straightforward and it was good. Just about every other thing that's added to it either makes it more complicated or more confusing or ends up bottling up customization which could have benefited everybody and casting it into the sees for some lucky soul to find.

I've gotten over all of that, of course. The thing, though, is that every time I've complained about it, someone's appeared out of the ether to tell me that I should probably shut up and that no-body cares. I've seen the game move so very far from what it was that brought me here to begin with, yet that's never seemed to give me much of any credit. On the flip side, here I am now, championing a feature that I like but seems to be somewhat moving away from "the genre" and suddenly people who came for the genre now have a lot of credit because they were here first.

It's one-sided, that's what bugs me so much. When the game system is being changed to something else and I complain, who cares? When the game's genre is being changed to something else and other people complain, suddenly they have every right to. And that bugs me.

[ QUOTE ]
You keep saying that and I cannot identify with it. Even in the most vehement forum disagreements, I've never seen anyone "told" what they can and cannot do - you sound a bit like BI, here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been told a few times that what I like is "more WoW and EQ stuff and has no place in the game. Even thought it's already in the game a lot of the time. Catgirls have no place in the game (which puts Mynx/Bobcat in a difficult postion). Medieval knights have no place in the game. Elves have no place in the game. Orcs have no place in the game. Fairies have no place in the game. Witches have no place in the game. Just about every time I or someone else has complained that we can't make this or that costume, or that the pieces for this or that concept are somehow restricted while the pieces for other concepts are not, there's inevitably someone who feels we should shut up or go play WoW. Or the real kicker - go make our own MMO. I've seen that enough to know to expect it.

I may sound like I'm self-victimizing here, but the truth is that these things happen. There are a lot of concepts that some people feel shouldn't be made in this game and that if I want to make them, I should go play WoW/EQ/Whatever. I'm of the opinion that, pieces permitting, any concept and any costume can fit into the game, be it Neo, Wolverine, Legolas or Drizzle. Long as it's not a rule violation, I don't take well to people claiming certain concepts just don't fit.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly - this thread is about calling for CoX *not* to move away from its comic format to a general and formless "mish mash" - I understand you are saying that "you don't see it as a comic game" - and I don't know what to say to that, it's marketed that way, pretty much the entire playerbase knows it's that way, it uses all the terminology and, at least at this point, still fits firmly within the western comic setting, despite all the manga and sharpety sharp swords. So, at least in the case of "this" thread, no one is aking to move the game away from what you want, they are asking to keep it as it is (or some of them are, at least, such as the OP).

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with that, though, is that Dual Blades are already made and already into the game. We just don't have access to them yet, but for all that matters, they are in the game. It's a done deal. Asking that the next addition be something more comic-booky I can understand. But from where I'm standing, Dual Blades are already part of the game, so rallying to poo all over them IS rallying to get the game change from what it is. And what it is is what I like.

I'm not going to raise my voice if I find someone asking that the future powersets in the game be more in-line with the comic book genre, though I will probably request that they have OTHER uses besides. That won't be changing the game from what it is and what I like, but would be deciding what happens next and what gets added. But that's not the case. If people could, I've no doubt they'd ask that Dual Blades be removed and something else added. And that's what bugs me.

Fine, lots of people are unhappy. I wasn't very happy with Electric Melee and Electric Armour. But it's here already. Instead of ranting about it now that it's here, we can look at what else needs to be added to the game from now on.

That regard also stems from seeing many suggestions like forcing me into using a secret identity, having missions where I'm depowered, having missions where I'm captured and someone else needs to save me and so forth. That may be all cool and dandy, but I don't enjoy being forced into genre-correct encounters that I don't like, specifically since I'm not forced into them now.

It's just a lot of things and more a statement of general regard that I've seen in parts of the community, not something someone said specifically in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
We're talking about web sites sthat published the "going gold" press releases: releases composed by NC. I'd say NC has a pretty good handle on what type of game it is. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

If those are statements coming from PlayNC, then those would count, yes. You said "site," which I read as fan sites that listed their own news and reviews. Information coming from PlayNC or Cryptic qualifies as "seeing it in writing," yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Well that's good, then, if you and I are both of the mind that CoX should remain entrenched where it currently resides in its incarnation, then we're on the same page.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I like the game where it is and I certainly don't see any specific need to invent new, non-comic-book-specific powersets for it to make it complete. We already have all the melee weapons I can think of with weapon customization, short of staves and some more esoteric choices like ball and chain or scythes. I could still ask for a two-handed axe/sword/hammer but I agree we now have enough. We have a bludgeoning weapon, an axe weapon, a single-handed sword, a two-handed sword and dual swords. That's plenty with the new options, so no need to add more there for the foreseeable future.

I would still like to see more added in terms of firearms. Some kind of futuristic energy rifle akin to the Bots Mastermind primary attacks would be good. Maybe in terms of "a ray gun" to keep you happy Probably a single/dual handgun for the ranged ATs would be good, as well. More gadget-based powersets would be good, too. Flashbang, Web Grenade, Smoke Grenade, Forcefield Generator, etc. for Controllers and Heal other, Stimulant, Triage Beacon, Acid Mortar, Poison Gas Trap, etc. for Defenders.

That's the kind of stuff I want to see. I don't want to see gunblades, still more melee weapons or some kind of hideously specific powerset like Fish Mastery. But just as much, I don't want to see Shield Melee, talking to fish, super-weaving, shrinking to the size of an atom or what have you. I don't want corny or silly powers, nor do I want powers obviously taken from a single character because he's just so damn cool. For instance, I want shield defence, but I do not want it limited to a round shield with blue and red stripes with a white star in the middle. I want it to be selectable from an array of such colourful items, as well as more traditional medieval variants, plus a riot shield, an energy shield and so forth.

I'm against the game being turned into a comic book, not against it feeling like one.

[ QUOTE ]
The OP shouldn't have to come back and ask why you didn't like what they suggested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually agree with this wholeheartedly, but for one small detail - the OP doesn't HAVE to come back and ask why people disagree with their suggestion. The OP shouldn't have to CARE why people disagree with their suggestion unless these people can convince the OP that they have a point.

It's a two-way street. If someone doesn't care enough about refuting an idea to spend time explaining their position, then the weight of their disagreement is that much less. The very least a disagreement can do under any circumstances is add +1 to the count of for vs. against. In a logical debate, that is pretty much worthless as a means to decide the validity of a suggestion. So if someone doesn't want to elaborate, then that just scores points off weight of their post.

It's a simple trade off.

I agree that the OP shouldn't have to come back and ask why someone disagrees, because the OP really shouldn't care about people who disagree without due reason. You can't really discuss with such people. Furthermore, it's obvious they don't intend to discuss to begin with. So the smart thing to do would be to note their disagreement and move on like they weren't even there.

All I'm saying is there's no need to ban people who feel like expressing blunt disagreement. If you don't like them, their posts or feel they aren't contributing, then simply ignore them. If they couldn't be arsed to elaborate, then you really can't force them into a logical discussion anyway..

Again, we return to moderation while reading responses, which is something receiving almost no attention at all in favour of moderation while posting.

[ QUOTE ]
If you agree completely.. what more is there to say? You could certainly inflate the post with what is simply a regurgitation of the post you agree with, but that is just silly to require that. All the explanation and points are in the post you are agreeing with. What is the point in repeating them over and over?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you don't always agree with the entirety of a post and every point it raised. Because sometimes you want to agree with certain parts and disagree with others. Because the idea is good but the reasons given for it are false. Because sometimes you want to add to the idea with suggestions on how it could be improved or other possibilities the original posted does not seem to have thought of.

/yes Means you agree with the idea as presented, nothing more. That's not entirely very constructive on its own.

[ QUOTE ]
When disagreeing.. your reasons are not readily present. How is anyone supposed to know what you find wrong with it unless you explain? /no is utterly useless on its own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I need a reason to disagree? If someone tells me they like pie and I say I don't, do I need a reason for it? Sometimes there are things I don't like for no reason other than because I don't like them. What is the point of inventing an entire point when the bottom line is I simply do not like the idea because I do not like the idea? What purpose does that serve? If I have anything to add, any explanations to include and any reasons to give. If I don't, I'll state my disagreement and move on.

/no Means I disagree with the idea as presented. Nothing more. That's no more or less constructive than a /yes on its own.

This whole thing is an incredibly one-sided way of looking at the issue. People are allowed to agree completely for absolutely no reason reason whatsoever, but they are not allowed to disagree for no reason. They HAVE to have a reason to disagree or they're unconstructive. Which is biassed any way you slice it. If you want to be constructive in a thread, then simple agreement or disagreement will quite simply never do. A suggestion followed by 20 /yes posts is no more constructive than a suggestion without a single post, or a suggestion with 20 /no posts. There's a simple reason for this - agreement without input is just as useless as disagreement without input. They're both a representation of opinion, and there's no reason why one has to be justified while the other has not.

Let me put this in a single sentence: One can disagree with an idea because one does not like the idea just the same as one can agree with an idea because one likes the idea. Neither requires justification, not intrinsically.

[ QUOTE ]
Say no more. We couldn't be farther apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

[ QUOTE ]
And it seems to me it would be preferable to build a game around your wants for a formless "everything in one" game rather than change the one obviously centered on the comic genre into it, not that I blame you for asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

My only problem here is that I can hear what you're saying. Yet when I look at the game itself, a rather formless, free-for-all game is what I see. So, really, I can't see all that much that would actually need to change. From where I'm looking, the game is pretty much as I want it to be right now. Getting even closer, in fact. Archvillains and Super Groups, to me, are comic book concepts in name only. Sure, they hail from comic books, but are hardly unique to the genre, and are rather unassuming about what you want them to be, to boot.

For instance, I have a couple of SGs all to myself. That means all filled up with my alts, just for the record. They're there for concept reasons. One is a loosely-defined criminal organisation under the thumb of a rather ruthless and capable leader and the other is your standard issue mega corporation. The framework fits as well as any, to be honest, and while it doesn't exactly facilitate my ideas to the last detail, it doesn't really stand in their way whatsoever.

Funnily, a friend of mine complains about how CoH's Super Groups aren't really true to comics, where groups of super heroes tend to be at or below 10 people and groups of 75 don't really exist outside of special cases or special events. I could be interpreting his words wrong, of course, and I'm probably the least knowledgeable person here when it comes to comic books, so I'm only throwing that out as a noteworthy detail.

[ QUOTE ]
If that were true we wouldn't have threads questioning the presence of too many blades in the game. Obviously it's an awkward eye sore to some or it wouldn't be noted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've probably seen my take on that about every time I've come across it. The game itself accepts these concepts. It's some people that don't like them. This is really where the forums are telling me I can't do something while the game and the settings blatantly contradict this. To be honest, I'm not really all that worried about what concepts other people feel I should or should not be making. All I'm worried about is making concepts that make sense to exist in paragon city, weather any of the other players like it or not.

And, really, looking at my characters, I have a robot, a cyborg, a couple of mutants, a couple of generic experiments, a demon, a necromancer, an angelic ghost, a couple of aliens and a school girl. I don't have ninja, pirates or catgirls. Yet. There's always time for more ideas. I don't lose much of any sleep worrying if someone saw me running around and didn't like it. I see people that I can't even begin to fathom the corn of on a daily basis, but it's their dime, really. Can't really tell if it fits without a backstory, but those who do have any usually fit at least somewhat.

[ QUOTE ]
O.o .. Sam... every single web site that covers it puts it in the "comics" genre. It's still very western comic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like individual players, how different sites bill the game does not really hold much weight for me. Most sites I've seen tend to list games based on their own reviews and interpretations, so for the "written statement" part that doesn't quite cut it. It tells me a great many people believe it, and that was never something I wanted to deny. I'm just looking for the official version.

[ QUOTE ]
Well,I told you that was the original premise, becuase that's how it was marketed. And, since we've seen no press releases stating otherwise, I've always assumed that would remain a consistent theme.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never recall reading anything that said "We're starting as a comic MMO, but moving into pulp illustrated at a later date", I just saw "City of Heroes, the first comic based MMO, goes gold..." on websites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember a quote from the Statesman quite vividly. It was in response to one of those "It's like that in comic books, so it should be like that in game." I think it was about secret identities. The quote in question went along the lines of saying the game was inspired by comic books, but by no means an attempt to BE a comic book. So while they drew inspiration from comic books and did what they could to stick to them, they would not take that so far that it would cause them to make a bad decision.

I don't have the quote and my memory is fuzzy enough that I may well be making all of that up. The point is that I'm pretty confident the developers have stated that they will keep to the genre as much as they could, but would not let that drive push them into adding things that were bad for the game or keep them from adding things that were good for the game. The way I interpret that is that the game started off as inspired by comic books and this remains the major source of inspiration for new content, but that this does not mean the game has to stay true to the genre as any stringent rule.

[ QUOTE ]
?!?!? "You were here first"? I have no idea where you're going with that. I'm going to promote my game opinions based on my subscription fee and presence in the player base rather than seniority of some sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a reason that was posted in quotes. All that is to say that I like the game as it is and as I see it. Lots of people really seem to like telling me I'm wrong and that the game should be changed into something they like and I probably won't. Hence, "I was here first" because the game is what I like and it seems a little awkward to break it for me and fix it for someone else. Not that it's somehow wrong, just that a change that takes work to implement shouldn't simply take from one person and give to another, but should aim to improve the game overall. Improve the game, in fact by developer admission, while degrading it for the least amount of people possible. So I just don't take well to the "Your opinion doesn't matter because I am Legion for we are many." You know?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't hold much fears of this happening, mind. I thin they're tossing out bits and pieces to keep subscribers happy. But i don't think a shift to a generlized "Mish Mash MMO" is going to get any new customers. Fantasy and future-tech fans already have their bases covered and, as fun as CoX's cute little combat system is, the game doesn't really have the depth to attract a life-changing crowd just based on a theme-shift. It would really have to break soem new ground in the design department for that. Doubtful at this late stage.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just the thing, though, I don't think a theme shift is necessary. The game's already pretty much as I want it. Again. There's nothing I'd like to see changed, save for minor technical stuff (like soloable TFs, but that's neither here nor there). The game is pretty much perfect right now. What I want to see is exactly what I'm seeing - more progress on all fronts. What I do NOT want to see is a sudden change of heart that sees a drive to make the game "more comic-booky" that sees bad decisions made for the wrong reasons.

Case in point: I want to see shield defence. Badly. I do NOT want to see shield melee. A bonk with the shield or two I can see, but a whole melee set with a shield is in the realm of handguns for Scrappers - pushing it a LOT.

Frankly, as long as the game keeps going as it has, I'll be happy. Do we need more blades? Let me see... Do we need more powersets altogether? It goes along the same lines. There's other stuff I would have like to see, too. Fistfighting, lightsabre, light melee (as a counterpoint to Dark Melee), gadget melee and a bunch of other sets with weapons, many of which we're getting as weapon customization. Dual Blades wasn't even the first on my list when I voted on that poll - Energy Blade was.

But that's what we got. Frankly, I don't care what we DIDN'T get. Dual Blades is a cool set even if I voted for something I wanted more besides. It adds an interesting twist to old concepts and opens the door to new ones. To me, that's good enough for the game.

[ QUOTE ]
So did you just not read the thread, or did you decide to ignore all the valid reasons why /signed is different then /no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just how "valid" those reasons are is up for debate.

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, while I can support other gamer's wants, I've no interest in a formless game that lacks any creative cohesion or identity. I subscribed because it was a western comic themed MMO, and while the introduction of manga elements (the "other big comic market") was inevitable, this casting off the general comic flavor in favor of a "super people" mish-mash is more along the lines of a 1970s "Illustrated Pulp Magazine" than any comic. Which in itself wouldn't be bad save for the enter initial design of the game remains very evidently designed around a different theme.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your mileage may vary. I want a mishmash of different genres and concepts for no other reason that that I find other people's subjective definition of what a genre should be and the things that should fit in there limiting as a general concept. Seen as how the game has, but not necessarily displays all those concepts at the same time, I find that this is quite easily achievable in a tasteful way. Sure, we have a mishmash of like a gazillion things, but that in no way requires us to have stories that are a mishmash of different designs. It's pretty easy to pick one aspect of the game's universe, one or several, in fact, and run with them while more or less ignoring the rest for another story. After all, do we NEED to involve the Sky Raiders when we're dealing with the Circle of Thorns trying to summon yet another demon? Not unless the story calls for it as far as I see it.

Personally, I know I bought CoH not because of anything to do with comic books, but exactly because it was a SuperMMO. It defined a genre all of its own - people with powers in a modern-day setting. That's it. I was deathly afraid I'd get into the game and be face with slogan-spouting, tights-wearing super heroes of corn. I was quite prepared to simply not play past the first few months that came paid with the game when I bought it (the game plus a time card). However I found a world not built on someone else's intellectual property, not constraint to someone else's idea of what should fit and what shouldn't. I found a world that was, for all intents and purposes, perfectly free and unlimited. Any concept you want to put in there will work, just as long as you give it a bit of thought. Any idea you have can be implemented. Any genre you draw from will fit in immediately and quite snugly, to boot.

To end on a few points:

People keep telling me that this game was meant to be about American comic book super heroes. I'd like to see that in writing from an official source, because my understanding has always been that this was a starting point and a rough guideline, but never a stringent rule or even much of a concern when it dictated bad decisions.

People keep telling me that we don't need to skip genre to have everything in the game because the comic book universe already has everything. I'd be inclined to agree with this, if what fit into the comic book universe were not brought up so often as a reason to NOT do things. I'd appreciate how those seemingly contradictory notions can coincide.

People keep telling me that what I, personally, like doesn't matter, because the game is built one way and what I like is quite another and that I should go play something else. The problem with that is that the game is, in everything other than forums, a perfect representation of what I want. It has the things I want, it covers all the genres I can think of and accepts all the (often esoteric) concepts I've put into it without much of any shoehorning. All that is to say, I don't see a problem anywhere other than here on the forums, where people keep telling me there is one and that the game as it is and as I like it really shouldn't be like this but should be something else. And that somehow keeps putting me in the wrong, even though "I was here first." I'd appreciate an explanation on that one, as well.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will respond to any post in any way I feel like within the confines of the forum rules. I don't really care if you think that's being rude or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same here. I dont give crap if I m rude or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then if you are rude you will not be surprised if you are banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which brings us back to an old point - there's no rule against rudeness. There are rules against hate, insults and trolling. There is no rule against being rude unless they added it in the last couple of weeks.

Rude is slamming the door in someone's face. Rude is interrupting a person who's speaking. Rude is not minding others' sensitivities. But that, in fact, is just a normal part of human interaction. Unless there is a forum rule that requires me to care about my fellow forum-goers deeply and affectionately, then I will keep not caring one bit about the bulk of them, and I'll be just as rude as I please. As long as I'm not actually OFFENSIVE, then there's really nothing against the rules in that manner of conduct.

To point, if someone takes offence at the fact that I felt it prudent to say I don't like their idea without stating why, then them's tough cookies. There are plenty of very reasonable responses to that that don't include a hissy fit or hurt feelings. And believe me when I tell you, I understand that all too well.

If the rules will require me to not be rude, which they actually don't, then they should require other people to keep a cool head, which they don't, either. Because somehow this is being made out to be a strange case. It's not OK for people to be curt, rude or inconsiderate, but it's somehow OK for the self-proclaimed victims of these actions to be curt, rude and inconsiderate in return.

You know what this reminds me of? A grown man being placed in kindergarten. Then the teacher keeps saying "I know you're right, but you know that'll make them cry, so don't." You can't really ask children to take it like adults, after all. I do not, however, like to think these forums should be handled like kindergarten.

Self-moderation goes both ways. It has to do with what people post and it has to do with how people read those posts. We seem to be persecuting the posters a whole lot, but are we doing much of anything about the people looking for something to be offended about?

[ QUOTE ]
Ill miss shooting stupid ideas down by saying "/JRanger"
Ah oh well. whatever improves the forums, I guess!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's all be creative here. If we can't use /JRanger, then maybe we can use /RJanger? Or how about /REgnarj? There's also /GNarjer. Plenty of stuff to choose from. If one word responses aren't good enough, then about 15 applications of any combination of these should suffice, right?

Yeah, I thought so.

Asking people to behave themselves is one thing. Telling people they should post a certain way or post a certain minimum required number of words or post a required argument or what have you is just one big slippery slope. If we keep going that way, we may end up with people being prosecuted because they didn't post the correct way.

Far as I'm concerned, self-moderation is as much about what you post as how you can handle what other people post. But we never see our moderators asking us to not overreact. They're always asking us to watch what we post. Let's hope we'll get fewer people banned in THIS iteration of the exact same thread a second time over.