TonyV

Okay, genius. In your reality, I'd like to see you develop an MMOG in which no interaction is required. I even have a name to suggest for it: "Boring Town: I Can't Believe I Wasted My Money Developing This Crap Edition".

Seriously, it's not rocket science. A game in which interaction with other players isn't a key element of the game is not an MMOG. Period. End of story. (And you know I'm not talking about buying and selling stuff on the market.) The longer you keep insisting that it is, the deeper you dig your hole, and the sillier you sound.

You're so dug in now that I understand you not wanting to give an inch. But if you could just step back for a minute and read what you've been saying, I really hope that you'd realize just how foolish it sounds. That 1) there could be MMOGs out there where everyone blithely ignores everyone else and have full access to all the content, and that's a feasible plan, and 2) that City of Heroes should be such a game. It's ludicrous. Maybe if you just calm down a little bit, take a break, talk to some buddies about your weird theories, you'll realize just how wrong you are.

...At least, I hope.

It means that high-level interaction is a key element of the game. The exact details of how that is implemented is highly dependent on the game. In City of Heroes, it is implemented via content and various rewards that are either gated outright to teams or significantly more easy to obtain on teams.

You and some others seem to be under the false impression that MM means that it is a game in which multiple people are merely playing in a shared environment; that there is no requirement that they actually be interacting with each other at all.

THAT is an idiotic belief. NO MMOG that I know of in the history of gaming has ever fit that meaningless description. I defy you to find one--just one single solitary instance--non-parody ad in which a game in which players do not interact with each other pitches itself as a MMOG.

There are none.

So yes, let's please stop with the idiotic beliefs. Maybe someday, City of Heroes will be rewritten to be a pure PvP game with no co-op play, and thus it could still be an MMOG without teaming up being a key aspect of the game. I highly doubt it.

But until then, stop claiming that teaming isn't an essential part of the game. Stop pretending like the devs have no interest in encouraging--even "forcing"--people to team up, even though they've repeatedly developed content and rewards that cannot be obtained by any other means (inasmuch as you're "forced" to obtain said rewards).

Um... No, I'm not.

An MMORPG is a subset of the MMOG genre. As such, traits of MMOGs are generally traits of MMORPGs. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. I was talking about MMOGs in a general sense, but everything I said applies to MMORPGs as well.

Specifically, I chose these words very carefully:

"Interacting" can mean a variety of things. It most certainly can mean PvP, as your "free-for-all deathmatch" example. In MMORPGs, "interacting" typically means teaming up, possibly with PvP elements (sometimes quite extensive) as well.

But the key element, the thing that separates a MMOG (thus MMORPGs) from non-MMOGs is that it involves not just people playing in a shared environment, but people playing with each other, be it cooperatively or competitively.

Of course, having said that, I realize that someone is going to misinterpret it yet again to imply that it means people must play together all the time, but that's not true. It doesn't mean you can't solo or even that you have to be interacting a majority of the time. It simply means interaction with other players is a core feature and a significant part of why most people play.

City of Heroes fits this description to a tee, with the side note that it doesn't have the hard requirements of interaction as much as some other games in the genre do, thus making it solo-friendly. But make no mistake, it is an MMORPG, and thus interaction with other players is a core feature, one that the developers and marketers can and do (and should) be encouraging.

As I've said repeatedly, it is a solo-friendly MMORPG. Stop being so dense.

This simply isn't true. There are a lot of games out there that are multi-player, some even with large numbers of players at once, that are not considered MMOs because they don't involve any significant degree of interaction with each other. It was merely what you just described: a game that takes place in a shared environment.

For example, ond that comes to mind was the old Xbox Live game 1 vs. 100 (now defunct, unfortunately ). At any given time, there could be tens of thousands of players playing. There was even a rudimentary level of interactivity in that you could make your avatar dance and such. But no one ever referred to it as a MMO.

Another example. Waaaaay back in the day, I used to play an IRC chatbot game (do they even still exist?) called Acrophobia. At any given time, there could be hundreds or thousands of people playing. There was a lounge-type area where you could sit around and chat amongst yourselves, and after a few minutes, you'd be sucked into an "instance" with five or six other people to compete at trying to make humorous phrases given a set of random letters. There were a lot of people playing. There was some rudimentary level of interaction in common areas, and game interaction in individual game instances. And it was, of course, online. Again, though, it was not an MMO.

As much as some folks would like to redefine what the genre is based on some dictionary definition of the individual words, the commonly accepted definition of the genre is that there are a lot of people playing who are not just single islands out there doing their own thing, but who are actually willing and capable of interacting with each other at some high level. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to or even that you are doing so a majority of the time, but it does mean that the capability to do so is an core feature of what makes the game fun.

I'm not just making this up. If you put any credence into Wikipedia, check out the article on MMOGs.

(Emphasis mine.) This pretty much describes what the devs have been shooting for. This isn't weird or unusual, it is simply a characteristic of the MMO grenre. This actually describes games that aren't as solo-friendly as City of Heroes, but then, that's why I've repeatedly said that City of Heroes is a solo-friendly game. Nevertheless, some people keep requesting that it be even more soloable, which is why I keep trying to explain that that is an unreasonable request. It's already well past the point that most MMOs are in terms of being solo-friendly. Having content that requires teaming isn't some egregious slap in the face to solo-only players. It's simply an accepted norm of the genre, on that most people accept and like.

So yes, there's definitely an argument that needs to be put into the grave, but it's not mine.

This is a reasonable request, one that I support. The devs have always provided interesting solo content in issues past, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.

However...

This is directly a call to the developers to make more solo content. Keeping in mind that well over 90% of the game is soloable, I think this is an unreasonable request. There is already so durn much solo content in the game, asking for even more smacks of requesting that all content be soloable, which I think is a bad thing.

Again, I am not saying that having a solo Incarnate path is a bad thing. I'm waiting with eager anticipation for the updates to hit live just like most people, and I will be soaking up a lot of the new solo content with glee just like most people. It will be a lot of fun.

However, what I'm trying to get the OP to understand is that as fun as Issue 22 is going to be for him, Issues 19 through 21 were fun for us, and continue to be so, specifically because of the exciting teaming content out there, and the fact that because of the rewards, there are a lot of people who normally wouldn't team--mind you, I'm not saying people who don't like to team, but people who just normally don't team--doing stuff in groups. I'm not particularly extroverty, but I definitely hope they continue developing interesting team-only content with unique rewards in addition to the vast amount of soloable content they'll be developing with unique rewards.

The devs have just about always, in my opinion, struck a really nice balance between players with different types of play styles. The devs have always provided interesting perks for being well-rounded and doing a little bit of a lot of stuff, never really allowing so much for one type of play style to be the "right" kind of play style.

Maybe Incarnate trials aren't the most fun thing for you to do. Fair enough, no one is making you do them. If you're willing to suck it up and give them a try, you get access to more cool perks. If you're willing to wait a while, you might get access to those perks without having to team up in massive groups, but then, you might not have access to all of the latest and greatest bleeding edge stuff. This is all right and normal, such is the consequence of deliberately limiting how you're willing to play and refusing to be well-rounded. No one is making you, no one is saying that you're doing it wrong. It's just the carrots the devs are offering to be a multifaceted player, it's way the game has been from the beginning, and it's likely the way it will continue to be from now on.

Same ol' spew from Bill and friends.

I defy you to find where I have ever said there shouldn't be a solo incarnate path. Since I "screamed" about it, it shouldn't be too hard.

Go ahead. Find it. I DARE you.

What I have said is that there will always be things in the game that require teaming. What I have said is that there will be things that are considerably easier with a team than solo. What I have said is that it's not that unusual for some new features to be team-only, and eventually later, they're made soloable and/or easier to obtain as they become old features and yet more new features come along. What I have said is that it is unrealistic to expect for all of the game content to be available to solo-only players, and I 100% stand behind that.

What I have never said is that "such-and-such feature should be team-only."

Of course, stating pretty much the opposite of what I've said and trying to tear down such a strawman in futility isn't a new phenomenon with you.

Edit:

From May of last year:

"Screamed that we should never have a solo incarnate path" indeed.

Edit 2:

From even earlier, February 2011:

Still stand by your claim that I've "screamed that we should never have a solo incarnate path"? Or are you ready to admit that you're just making **** up and putting it out there as if I said it?

You are, however, playing an MMORPG, a genre of game that is primarily oriented towards teaming up and interacting with other people. You have to understand that.

This does not mean that you must team up all the time. I'd guesstimate that around 90% of the game is completely soloable. Contact missions, newspaper missions, safeguard/mayhem missions, SSA missions, several zone events (troll raves, ghost ship, etc.), even PvP missions (Shivan shards, Warburg missiles) are all soloable. Several of the game systems such as the Invention system, the market, almost all badges, most seasonal events (gift hunting, trick-or-treating, bobsledding, etc.) are soloable.

However, it is not unreasonable to expect that there will be some parts of the game that require teaming up. It is, after all, an MMORPG. Truth be told, this game is more solo-friendly than most in the genre.

There are a lot of single-player RPGs out there. These are specifically geared towards people who literally never want to team up. Some of them are really good. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be playing City of Heroes. What I am saying is that you deliberately chose to engage in this genre of game. You knew what you were in for. It's not like the developers or marketers of the game suddenly sprang the fact that it's massively multiplayer on you. Yet it's coming off like now that you're playing, you want to change the game to suit your specific style of playing, a style that isn't just solo-friendly, but a style that is solo-only. This is a style that is antithetical to the MMORPG genre.

I like the fact that there are some things that you can only get through teaming in the game. The fact is that if you could solo literally everything, most people would solo literally everything, and this wouldn't be a very massively multiplayer-friendly experience. Contrary to popular belief, it's not that people hate teaming up. It's because people tend to take the path of least resistance, the easy way out. It's easier to solo, therefore people who really don't mind teaming, people who would normally be perfectly good and willing players on Incarnate trials, would solo instead.

So I don't think you're bad. I certainly don't think you're handicapped. But you are wrong if you're trying to change the game. There is a huge difference between a solo-friendly game and a solo-only game. City of Heroes is solo-friendly, but no one--not the community, not the developers, not the marketers--ever promised a solo-only game. And you know what? That's okay. I'm a big fan of the game, and I don't find it 100% fun, either. There are a few things in it that don't suit my play style. But the good vastly outweighs the bad, and when there's something I want, even if it's something I don't particularly like doing, I do it. Why? Not because I'm some sort of masochist, but because those cases are few and far between, and for every minute I spend doing something I don't really like I'm spending hours doing doing things I do.

Please stop trying to make the game something it's not. If you don't like teaming up for things that require teaming up, team up anyway. If it's simply intolerable, then I'm sorry, but perhaps you picked the wrong genre of game to play. I really hope you can figure out ways that you can have fun, that even if it's not 100% fun, you'll find the x% of fun that it is will compel you stay.

Me cosplaying would... not be pleasant. Besides, I'm as artistic as a two-by-four, and that includes any kind of efforts at creating clothes. I have a restraining order against trying to sew buttons back on my attire.

Dammit! Now I want to go! Can I get entered for this prize from Atlanta?

PM Zwillinger and see if he's got some spare costume codes or something laying around. Instant door prize!

I think he was thinking more in terms of Sally Ride than Judy Jetson.

IF they service your area, they're about as cheap as anyone. I guess they're pretty good; anyone I know who's flown Southwest didn't have any trouble. The main thing that makes them attractive is their "bags fly free" campaign. Almost every other major airline charges $25 per bag checked. Back in November, I flew American and ended up getting stuck with $50 on top of all the other fees and whatnot.

The only hitch is that Southwest doesn't fly out of every airport like most of the big airlines do, so YMMV on whether you can take Southwest.

My advice is to check some of the conglomosites (priceline, expedia, orbitz) and check Southwest. Just remember, if you're going to check a suitcase, you'll have to add $50 to the ticket price you get from the conglomosite.

Note: I just looked it up, and Southwest does fly out of Philly, but the prices on Expedia are cheaper. Be sure to check out multiple sites to get the best deal!

Also, little tip: You'd think a non-stop flight would be best, but if you're flying six or more hours, do try to get a flight with an hour layover or so. You'll welcome the chance to get off the plane and stretch your legs! Another little hint: Tuesdays and Wednesdays are generally the cheapest days to book airline tickets. DO NOT book on a weekend, or you'll generally pay a lot more! Airlines change their prices four times per day, so the day and time of day you book can make a HUGE difference.

Edit: Another tip: Fly in to San Jose (SJC) if possible. There are only two reasons why you'd want to fly into San Francisco (SFO): 1) If you can get a significantly cheaper ticket going there, or 2) you plan on sightseeing there before/after the Pummit. San Jose is much closer, you won't have to deal with Bay Area traffic, and it's a smaller airport, which means it's much easier to get into and out of than San Francisco.

Be sure to check southwest.com. Their deals are usually as good or better than the conglomerate sites like priceline, expedia, etc., and they don't charge baggage fees.

Hyper, you're out.



Seriously, I'm not sure if Dinah's has rooms with more than two beds. I'll call and check. If so, this will be a possibility. I don't think they have adjoining rooms, either, but we can at least get rooms in the same building, maybe on the same floor, I'm sure. I grew up with three older sisters, so I'm well used to girl cooties.

They're not deleted! If you want, I can box 'em up in an archive and send them to you. The site's not dead, though, I swear!

Dude, I will! As long as you don't smoke in the room, we'll be fine.

That's great news. Get the food from somewhere else if you have to, but the hotel is actually really nice for a great price, in my opinion. I stayed at the Dinah in November and at the Crowne Plaza across the street back in May, and the Dinah was MUCH nicer--and less expensive to boot. And those mai tais at Trader Vics...

Are you going by yourself? If so, double up on the hotel with someone. I had a roommate back in November (Ninus), and it was awesome.

What? Everyone is just one thin layer of skin away from looking like that.

*creepy stare...

It's okay, someone changed it...

You know, restroactively...

April 28, 2012. You can get the airplane tickets, but you might want to hold off on hotel reservations since they will probably get a discount rate wherever they decide to hold it. There's also a Community Discussion thread.