Tyger42

So, because some guy on another server created his character before me and some people decided they wanted to ram a total change in server community down my throat because they were too cheap to buy a transfer and/or lazy to reroll on a server that more suited their needs, I should be forced to either lose my name or have a tacky roman numeral stuck on the end? And you don't see why that would be a problem for people?!

This. I get into arguments over this on the Rift forum all the time. People scream for server merges, then look at me like I'm crazy when I suggest the idea that there are a lot of people who roll on low pop servers intentionally because that's what they prefer. ( Of course, the scream for merges is just the Chicken Littles having their field day because all the servers aren't showing high/full and everyone isn't packed into the same areas like they were around launch )

There are more parties involved than "you" and "them". The site wasn't down for everyone, so that suggests it wasn't them. Doesn't mean it was you, though. There are parties in between. However, holding PS accountable for failings of other people is just plain ridiculous. So is the notion that saying "it's not their fault" is the same as saying "it's your fault".

I don't. The point was that a "forum regular" doesn't necessarily mean the person reads the announcement folder.

See, what baffles me about this is the fact that the announcement was made while I was on a break from the games, not reading the forums, and I was STILL aware of it...

Just because they're regulars in the chatter forums doesn't mean they're good about keeping up with the announcements. Good god, what they hell do you want them to do, put a sticky in big red letters at the head of every folder and give everyone a personal phone call to explain it to them?

And I'm saying they advertised it plenty. Not their fault you or anyone else overlooked these rather clearly posted announcements.

And I'm saying you're wrong. They announced it through no fewer than FOUR CHANNELS that are available to EVERYONE. The forums in particular. The fact that people choose not to use any of those channels is NOT their fault. What, do you want them to hand deliver a telegram to your door?

Conclusion: Several people who read the forum don't bother to read the announcements section.

Fact: Announcements were also made through other channels ( Facebook, Twitter )

Reality: Still not PS's fault.

The forums are their primary method of relaying news. Not their fault if someone is too busy to follow it closely or chooses not to follow it at all.

EQ acutally peaked at nearly 500k according to this chart. It did drop off quick when "that other game" came out, though, and only really got that high due to so few viable alternatives. Yes, with the glut of MMOs on the market today, anything over 100k is healthy, especially when that level has been maintained for 7 years and counting.

Judging from the server statuses compared to last time they announced 120k, I don't see how anyone could figure 60-70k. I think the 140k is even being conservative, really.

What do you think an XRay is? There's a reason the doctors stand behind a lead barrier.

Makes sense to me. Yanno, except not signed "Generic Hero", but the actual hero name. You telling me you don't know anyone that's pulled strings to get a friend a favor?

Think of them as training vouchers. Or authorization for procedures in the labs in the case of the science ones.

My thoughts exactly. It's not a complicated concept. It'd be about like asking to transfer xp between characters when you think about it.

Just look at other games that have done it. People constantly **** every time about the gear they worked so hard on now being "useless". And the previous end game content being rendered irrelevant, though there's less of a danger of that with CoH.

More specifically, of course: New FREE costumes. ><

The point I'm trying to make is it's not the same for most people. And, as I said, the accomplishment is more meaningful to a lot of people when failure risks some form of loss. Feelings on this go across the spectrum, and the current penalty is a reasonable compromise for all of them.

But what you're talking about here is another form of death penalty. Some degree of what you describe exists in CoH now ( The mobs return to full health ). However, full-on what you describe would actually be HARSHER than the penalty CoH invokes presently, even if debt were removed.

It comes down to the same thing, though: You're being penalized for failing. As it stands now, the "reset" is softened in favor of a temporary reduction of future xp gain ( debt ). And it's only xp being reduced - drops, inf, and badge credits remain the same ( In fact, you get even more badge credits by the end of the fight in terms of the damage received badge and such, not to mention the one specifically for paying off debt ).

And I'm the one being called "selfish"......

It's no more selfish than the attitude that what you do in a multiplayer game has no effect on anyone else. You're not the only one in the game world. And even if you don't team much or at all, there are a lot of others who do. Given that multiplayer is at the base of the design, then it makes sense that those who play most with other people would be the first considered when making design decisions ( That's not to say that the soloists are wrong. I primarily solo myself ). A system that encourages the player to learn to work toward success and avoid failure for the benefit of the team seems only natural.

Going back to your statement about "failing but still succeeding", isn't that inherent in any system that allows you to revive after a defeat, even without any death penalty? If you get your butt kicked by the bad guy, you've failed. Yes, for some, that in itself is incentive enough to not die. For others, they need the extra incentive of avoiding a penalty.

There's also what I said a couple posts up: There is another group of players for whom the risk of losing something upon failure makes success that much better.

So, in the end, the only logical choice is to come up with a system that penalizes failure without being so harsh it drives most players away. I think the debt system strikes that right on. Sure, it won't please everybody, but that is, of course, impossible. It pleases enough to be a good decision. As I've said, opposite to a harsh penalty driving people off by creating too much frustration, too light or no meaningful penalty at all drives people off by trivializing the game and making accomplishments basically meaningless. Kind of becomes "we don't bother keeping score and both teams get trophies"

I'm not saying it creates challenge, just provides incentive to avoid death because there are a lot of people for whom death in itself isn't enough of an incentive. My opinion is that lack of consequences bog the game down just as bad, but in this instance by making fights take longer because people keep getting defeated due to pure recklessness.

I've said here several times now that I feel the same. The system is fine. Maybe softened up a little too much from its original state, but still fine.

What I say above covers that. Incentive to avoid death for those who don't feel that the death in itself is enough incentive. I'll add as well that for a lot of players, the risk of losing something upon failure makes success that much sweeter.