[ 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. 
What I was saying with the Dev Tracker comment is that people are making blanket statements about what EVERYONE is doing. What's REALLY happening in the game. When in fact by the statistics, those claims are wrong.
Most people do missions. Most people do not make optimal experience making heros and grind level 1 to 50 in the shortest amount of time possible.
They are not concerned about finding the optimal villain type for their hero-planner, planned out UBER build (path of least resistance) and farm them till the experience could be better somewhere else. They are following the missions and story arcs that their contacts give them.
I am part of that majority of players. I made an Ice/Energy Blaster as my first hero during pre-launch and have done nothing but missions with him. He's not UBER, and I've made, what you would probably call, tons of mistakes in power choices and slotting him. Imagine that ... A Blaster that can't take out 10 yellows in 2 seconds (heh ... I didn't even take Build Up till level 22). But I still play him and will continue to do so till he either reaches 50 or I decide to stop playing CoH. My second hero is a Mind/Radiation Controller ... Again ... Nothing but missions. In all, since pre-launch, I've made 12 to 15 heros (sue me, I like messing with different combos and the hero builder) and have settled on 4 that I play most often. Of all those heros, I have never devoted more than little bits of time here and there street hunting (mostly to get the last bits of a level between missions), beyond arresting baddies on the way to and from contacts and missions ... Yeah ... I do that too.
That is what the majority of players are doing. Missions and playing for fun. Not grinding experience. When I level I feel accomplishment, but it's not the goal of my playing. The goal is fun.
I'm very happy about Issue 2. I took my Blaster to the test server to see the changes for myself, and was very pleased with the changes to mission rewards and my Tanker will surely like the endurance reductions. So far so good in my book.
So statements like the one I used as an example (which was all I was doing there), are simply wrong. Unless of course, you'd like to assert that the Devs are lying when they say things like ... According to our data, The majority of players do missions and less than 1% of the players of CoH post on the forums.
I happen to think Statesman would have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by lying to us, so I take his statements as facts. YMMV.
As for the rest of all the discussion about optimal experience per hour and the purple patch and all ... I kinda don't care as it really doesn't affect me.
Now I'll admit that I'm not too keen on a huge increase of villains that have status effects because I do solo a fair amount of the time too, but there are already many things I can't solo and I do have a regular group that plays together.
Bottom line ... I've enjoyed most of the time I've spent playing CoH. Statesman and the Devs are responsible for my enjoyment of the game so far ... I trust them to keep it enjoyable for me in the future.
If they don't ... Then I won't play. It's simple really. No complaining, no demanding changes, no whining, just a canceled subscription.
I have a problem with a common request in this thead.
The Devs plan to make the -1/0/+1 range more challenging, and therefore, more fun at the higher levels ~30, where, now, it is far too easy. So then we ask that levelling ~30 be made quicker/shorter/easier.... why? If you're having fun, then you won't need to 'grind' so hard and you can simply enjoy level 29 til you're done...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The numbers I have seen in an 4 person group that fights together is about 70k but less risk.
If I have a full 8 people in the group I am lucky if I can see 50k/hour.
[/ QUOTE ]
You still dont get what he was telling you. Your 4 person balanced team was fighting mobs intended balanced teams of 8 a level or two higher then you. This leaves no place for that team of 8 to hunt.
What he intends to do is make everything more difficult after level 22 so that you 4 player team cant take down those mobs and needs to find smaller spawns of lower level mobs. You now have plenty of headroom to form a team of 8 and take on those more difficult spawns and get more total xp to divide among your team member. If done correctly, this, along with the group xp bonus will increase the xp of participating in a larger group past that of a smaller group provided you hunt in zones where the spawn size is appropriate.
If executed properly his solution will work and is IMO superior to any other option. The only thing it is lacking is a way to deal with the fact that larger teams almost always have some sidekicks that cant enter the hazard or trial zones where the right spawns are found.
[/ QUOTE ]
I partly agree and partly disagree. Lets suppose that the entire world is single-target attacks(and holds etc). And everyone is the same AT. Given that, Statesman's solution almost fixes it.
Basically, think of +2 after his change as being what +4 is currently (XP, difficulty, etc. I'm assuming XP here). In that case, the change still has the following negative effect:
Harder to find appropriate enemies to hunt. Why? Because right now my level 32 blaster can get some return for everything from -2 to +4 (-2 isn't much *per* but the fights are at least very quick) That's a far amount of spawns that I can tackle, without much time looking for just the *right* one. Cut that range in half, from -1 to +2, and even though the XP is the same for the mobs I *do* fight, it is harder to find them.
Throw in the fact that groups are NOT the same level (Statesman, the telling quote you have here is "a group of 38s". My 37 emp has never teamed with a group of 37s. I team with (without sidekicking) as low as 33s or as high as 41s. If you compress the level range, suddenly that's 35s to 39s, making it harder to find groups. And since currently 33s can't contribute much to fighting things my level +1 (nor can I contribute that much to fighting 42s), the effective current range is really more like 35-39. Compress that in half and you have 36-38. Not easy to find a good team that way. And *really* hard to keep friends in that level range, except for things like my dedicated group of RL friends who have a specific character just for the group at a set time/day.
So it will make it harder to find appropriate things to fight, even if those appropriate things pay off the same as the current "appropriate" enemies.
Now, this *might* actually not be harmed by Statesman's changes. Suppose the "purple patch" stays exactly as-is (+5s are too tough to fight). But +4s are worth as much XP as +8s currently would be worth (and as hard etc). Now you've actually gotten rid of the purple patch, effectively. Yay! (Of course I'm not sure how you change these things without causing the level spread problem)
However! This assumes you're not talking about AoE effects. People have a *lot* more AoE effects. And I'm not just talking about blasters. I love my Tenebrous Tentacles/Dark Pit, precisely because I can hit a large group of minions with them. If I'm not supposed to be able to fight > 3 white minions, then you need to stop me from mass disorienting/immobilizing them. But if you do that, you make some of these powers worthless. A low damage AoE at least, still makes *some* progress towards finishing off the mob. But a super-short disorient (Especially one that only hits minions) doesn't do me much good at all. I'm just not confident that you can restrict us to fighting only 3 even-level minions without completely nerfing AoE holds.
Summary:
Potential Upsides:
1. Effective removal of "purple patch"
2. Missions provide better XP because you will now *want* to fight things at your level, and that's what missions provide.
Potential Downsides:
1. Harder to find groups, since they have to be closer in level(only so much SKing you can do)
2. Harder to street sweep (harder to find appropriate mobs, sidekicks can't get into hazard/trial zones) (But remember, most people, myself included, play missions. So this isn't that big a downside to most of us).
(Oh, and for all of you who say that "4 is the obvious team magic number". I disagree. I mean, maybe it is, but it is far from obvious. I find 6 to be the magic number, at least for missions, because it raises all the missions spawns +1 level. I will always try to keep a team at 6, maybe 7 (to have a buffer against falling below 6))
[ QUOTE ]
What he intends to do is make everything more difficult after level 22 so that you 4 player team cant take down those mobs and needs to find smaller spawns of lower level mobs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, so by nerfing 4 person groups, 8 person groups will become more desirable. Lovely solution.. Hope they're serious about increasing xp gains proportionately, because it'll be very frustrating otherwise.
I thought it was a nice change from other MMORPGs, where we actually get more powerful as we level, capable of taking higher cons. Too bad it was unintentional, and they're "fixing" it.
[ QUOTE ]
What I was saying with the Dev Tracker comment is that people are making blanket statements about what EVERYONE is doing. What's REALLY happening in the game. When in fact by the statistics, those claims are wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree..blanket statements are -usually- wrong..and I disregard statistics because they can prove or disprove anything. Any college professor will tell you this if you ask them point blank.
[ QUOTE ]
Most people do missions. Most people do not make optimal experience making heros and grind level 1 to 50 in the shortest amount of time possible.
[/ QUOTE ]
I concur. My Blaster is pretty average...he came out well..but in comparison to what I have seen out there..he's still a average Energy/Energy Blaster, level 40.
[ QUOTE ]
They are not concerned about finding the optimal villain type for their hero-planner, planned out UBER build (path of least resistance) and farm them till the experience could be better somewhere else. They are following the missions and story arcs that their contacts give them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed..until such point occurs that those story arcs are impossible because the mobs in them are no longer killable by the player. When 2 even con mobs can overwhelm a Hero through chain mezzing, while the third proceeds to kill them..the story arc becomes miserable, and debt ridden. Check out the Malta group..2 even con Sappers and a Tac Op, if left unchecked or one of those Sappers not killed straight up in the opening of a fight...will proceed to kill a Hero. Not ALL Heroes..but many builds under various ATs. Sappers drain Endurance, and will eventually begin stunning you...2 Sappers draining endurance while you're being pummeled the Tac Op, leave you with A) no way to fight back even if you could, and B) Point A being moot since you're stunned anyway. Then there's the Carnies..but we won't even go there..I enjoy fighting Carnies..they are probably my favorite villain group..but there are some major bad issues there..one of which is Illusionists when held by a controller, still use Phase Shift, even cased in blocks of ice..that's bogus..and well..I guess I went there. 
[ QUOTE ]
I am part of that majority of players. I made an Ice/Energy Blaster as my first hero during pre-launch and have done nothing but missions with him. He's not UBER, and I've made, what you would probably call, tons of mistakes in power choices and slotting him. Imagine that ... A Blaster that can't take out 10 yellows in 2 seconds (heh ... I didn't even take Build Up till level 22). But I still play him and will continue to do so till he either reaches 50 or I decide to stop
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a Energy/Energy Blaster..I can't take out 10 Yellows in 2 seconds unless I use Nova..and if I do commit to that..things are already at the "Okay I'm going to get debt here regardless, may as well go out with a bang stage.." I'm pretty much a normal player too..but I have had the foresight and experience from other places..EQ, E&B, AO, HZ, Neocron..to see when similiar decisions were put into place and the impact it had on the game overall..I see the same semblances occuring here, and I fear the inevitable will occur..all over again.
[ QUOTE ]
playing CoH. My second hero is a Mind/Radiation Controller ... Again ... Nothing but missions. In all, since pre-launch, I've made 12 to 15 heros (sue me, I like messing with different combos and the hero builder) and have settled on 4 that I play most often. Of all those heros, I have never devoted more than little bits of time here and there street hunting (mostly to get the last bits of a level between missions), beyond arresting baddies on the way to and from contacts and missions ... Yeah ... I do that too.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a full account of newbies...one in particular is a Ice/FF Controller..which cannot kill a trio of whites to save itself from defeat..Ice Control has pathetic damage potential, and FF has 0% damage potential. We are talking about little and none here. This is why Statesman's comment is incredibly false. A Ice/FF Controller (at least at the pre-30 stages) will end up running out of endurance before those three are killed, and
in turn, being killed themselves. And this is just one build, in one AT class. I have no idea how many others find themselves in similiar straits.
[ QUOTE ]
That is what the majority of players are doing. Missions and playing for fun. Not grinding experience. When I level I feel accomplishment, but it's not the goal of my playing. The goal is fun.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's fine for you..in some cases I get involved in story arcs and get curious about how they end..the Omega Clearance Badge arc is a good example..the Revenant Project arc is another (Yes..rough stuff..PPs everywhere.. :P )
The question is tho'..is it fine for everyone? Some pepole may feel that levelling = fun to them..and when that is curbed, cut or diluted..their fun factor also suffers as a result. I like to put the levels on as much as I do the arcs..I have a 40 Blaster as I said..it's nice to see what the next power will do...or finding hey I can go in this hazard zone now..prolly can't kill ANYTHING in there but I can at least peek in and take a look. Bottom line is still tho...what is good for you, may not be for others..and the problem lies therein.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm very happy about Issue 2. I took my Blaster to the test server to see the changes for myself, and was very pleased with the changes to mission rewards and my Tanker will surely like the endurance reductions. So far so good in my book.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have mixed blessings..it's the give with one hand, take with another approach..unfortunately it's not being done well even then because the taking away comes from specific areas, and what's given isn't given to those areas, it's given to everyone, making that loss from those areas all the more distinct.
Yes Update 2 has some incredibly good stuff..there is no arguing that..I agree. It also has some incredibly bad things coming as well..things which have again, killed what some people may perceive as fun to what they were volunteering to pay $15 a month to play.
[ QUOTE ]
So statements like the one I used as an example (which was all I was doing there), are simply wrong. Unless of course, you'd like to assert that the Devs are lying when they say things like ... According to our data, The majority of players do missions and less than 1% of the players of CoH post on the forums.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know you think you heard what I said, but I'm not sure that what you heard is what I meant.
Gotcha.
It's not a matter of the Devs intentionally lying so much as reading the statistics ..these wildly variable indicators..incorrectly. I'll give you a example from that dreaded beast EQ so you can see the point of what I mean.
In EQ there were various tradeskills..one reserved for a class called Shamans..the tradeskill was Alchemy. However Alchemy, was fundamentally broken..it did not work. Players complained for months on end..literally..popular websites like the Shaman's Crucible expounded on the problems with it repeatedly, even having EQ community managers make visits.
Much later, Verant came forth and admitted that it WAS broken, after all. You see, Verant had been datamining, testing it inhouse, and not ingame, and therefore did not have a grasp on the reality of the situation. And it was their game.
Statesman and Co are no above this..it's not beyond it happening to them as well. Datamining is fallible..having a firm grasp on the reality of the game you wrote, is not always 100% guaranteed simply because you wrote it. Things can progress due to interreaction from other players that were never considered, never planned for. Statesman himself has said he's been in teams where tactics were displayed that he never ever considered would be done. This is a sign here, that it's entirely possible to lose that grip on the reality of the game.
Note that this is not a slam against Statesman, just a clinical observation of fact. Because you created something, does not mean you know everything about it, and how it reacts. Children are a good at this, if you want a humorous example.
[ QUOTE ]
I happen to think Statesman would have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by lying to us, so I take his statements as facts. YMMV.
[/ QUOTE ]
Intentionally? No..I think he's trying very hard to make it all come together...him and the rest of Cryptic together. I simply feel that his perceptions of what are occuring, and the actual occurences themselves, are differing, and he is making changes on his perceptions rather than the actual ones occuring in the game.
[ QUOTE ]
As for the rest of all the discussion about optimal experience per hour and the purple patch and all ... I kinda don't care as it really doesn't affect me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Me either..I just wanna know how I'm supposed to kill a purple AV that's also my level at 40, when it 1 shots the tanks and me using Psionic damage. 
[ QUOTE ]
Now I'll admit that I'm not too keen on a huge increase of villains that have status effects because I do solo a fair amount of the time too, but there are already many things I can't solo and I do have a regular group that plays together.
[/ QUOTE ]
This fits me to a T as well...there is quite a bit I can't..but alot of what seems to be proposed is to make that alot...a whole lot more than alot...which leads back to the forced grouping issue. And make no mistakes...my SG the Watch are a absolutely top notch group of people ...but even then you can only do so much...especially when things are stacked against you..almost blatantly so. Moreso..I like to wander about and duo with my wife who is a Emp/Rad Defender..she heals, I kill things, and we share the XP..it's symbiotic..but the way things are going...this is going to come to a end..which is terribly sad.
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line ... I've enjoyed most of the time I've spent playing CoH. Statesman and the Devs are responsible for my enjoyment of the game so far ... I trust them to keep it enjoyable for me in the future.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's very few on earth I completely trust..I think I can count them on one hand and have fingers and a thumb left over. I find it hard to put blind faith in someone when I see discrepancies as has already been indicated here and elsewhere. Trust to a extent is fine..blind trust is -almost- always fatal.
[ QUOTE ]
If they don't ... Then I won't play. It's simple really. No complaining, no demanding changes, no whining, just a canceled subscription.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto..cept it will likely be 2..me and my wife have established a theme..wherever one of us goes, the other is nearby..always. So if one of us leaves, two will actually make the transition to another world somewhere..
[ QUOTE ]
But I have to say either people just aren't getting it, or they aren't trying to get it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This would seem to be the only point of agreement in the entire thread. Sort of.
In an attempt to be constructive, here's an idea for improving the large group experience. This won't boost xp into the stratosphere - deliberately so, but it may make larger groups more fun, which at this point is certainly a reasonably agreeable goal. What if the devs were to add a bonus on teams that acted something like tactics, but instead of giving a flat bonus, it was designed to mitigate the purple acc falloff - and just like tactics, the bonus would depend on the team members being "in range." The "team tactics" would have no effect on +2 mobs and lower, a proportionally increasing effect on +3 to +7 mobs, falling off again past +7 (making the sweet spot somewhere around +7).
To be specific (although the actual numbers are subject to tinkering) the numbers (for acc) were:
75,68,61,55,48,41,34,25,11,6,5,5,5 (the base percentage to hit for even con up through +12)
Let's say that for every team member in a certain combat radius, your to-hit on +3 to +7 was boosted by +5% of the base, by +3% on +8 to +10, and no effect above +10. Thus, if you are attacking +6, your base to-hit is 34%. With one team member nearby, it goes up to 35.7% (.34 + .34*.05). By the time you have an 8 man team, your percentage is up to 45.9% (.34 + .34 * .05 * 7) - you are hitting almost 1/3 more often, and in fact the base is comparable to attacking +4 solo.
Leave damage alone, and its still gonna be tough to take down the +4 or better mobs, but there will be less whiffing, which I understand is irritating. Now, a low level team taking on +6 would be much like a high level team taking on an AV (they can hit, but the purple damage reduce acts kinda like the ultra high hp of an AV). You would want to max out your team with 8 to make sure you could pour enough damage into the mob(s) to kill him.
Then, modify the xp cap so that the xp cap per person goes up slightly for each team member - again in range. That way, when they go for the high stuff, they won't be capped as badly. If the cap is normally 500xp, say, it might be 600 with a 4 person team, and 700xp with an 8 person team (note, I understand the cap is applied after the split, I'm specifically talking about the per-person cap after the split).
This is certainly not necessarily xp efficient (an efficient 4 or 5 man team hunting +4 and +5 would probably still be optimal), but that is not the goal of this proposal. The goal is to give big groups something to do thats fun and challenging. It only works if the team is really functioning as a team, not as 4 2-man hunting parties (the in-range requirement - much like sidekicking). It would even give lower level players some practice in team tactics against very tough opposition before diving into trials, AVs, or other things that will just get them killed.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Well you're right about one thing for sure ... This is my first MMO. And ironically, I'm not a Comic Book fan either ...
I've been a gamer for years (I'm an old guy) ... But never liked the idea of paying to play (and still don't really). That's not to say I'm an online gaming newbie ... I played Blizzard's games from 1996 to 2004, so I'm very familiar with the development progression of games (ie. nerfs and changes). In my book, they are the BEST bang for the buck gaming company out there, buy it once and play it for a really long time (some of the most replayable and well balanced games I've ever seen) ... Well ... Until WoW that is (which I have very little interest in btw).
A friend of mine who was following the development of this game kind of ... Talked me into pre-ordering, based on the fact that I could play in late beta and get an idea for very little expense.
Obviously I liked what I saw.
I understand your concerns ... And actually appreciate the discussion (something all too rare on gaming forums). I also fully understand that statistics can be manipulated to show anything ... *coughtheeconomyisgreatcough* ... And I don't want to be forced into grouping (if I don't feel like it) either. And I don't "blindly" trust anyone (except for my wife - who btw isn't playing this game, but who games quite a lot), let alone a salesman (I didn't fall off the truck yesterday - I know all about business and have owned a few in my days - hence my assertion that Statesman has nothing to gain by lying).
But in reading this thread, and all of Statesman's comments in here (and in other threads recently), in combination with what I see in the game ... I had a different reaction than many folks seem to have had, to what he's trying to accomplish and the direction he wants the game to go. I think he's trying to make it a better game (from my perspective), not just doing what he wants to do.
Yeah ok ... I have an optimistic streak too.
[ QUOTE ]
I have never, ever heard of a trial in faultline. Not from any of the hundreds of players I have played with at all levels of this game. I think this may be the first mention of a trial in faultline in the history of CoH.
[/ QUOTE ]
He actually answered the question "What are the low level Trial zones?". The correct answer is Upper Sewers (approx 4-10) and Faultline (11-19). I believe that Terra Volta is also a Trial zone...I don't have any references handy though. What he is saying is that there is a DIFFERENCE between Hazard zones and Trial zones - Trial zones should have larger mob spawns than Hazard zones. You don't seem to realize this. Unfortunately, many people don't know about the Upper Sewer and shun Faultline because of the perceived difficulty in travelling around (Only SS-only or no travel power people have reason to complain. I find SS+Hurdle to be a lot of fun there, YMMV). I find that Faultline spawns tend to be larger and/or have more boss/lt than Boomtown spawns. Clockwork Princes are rare in BT, but are in almost every FL spawn.
You are correct that there is not a Trial in Faultline though...I don't think having a Trial mission is a prerequsite of being a Trial zone. However, that might be a sign that they intend to add a trial there eventually. Trials off the top of my head - Hollows, TV Respec, Sewer, Hamidon.
The map that ships with the game (assuming you bought a box) and the in-game help (Menu -> Help -> Nav tab) both distinguish between City, Hazard, and Trial zones. The in-game help even lists the suggested level range for each zone.
[ QUOTE ]
I think he's trying to make it a better game (from my perspective), not just doing what he wants to do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you really think any of us think the dev's want to make a worse game?
All we are pointing out is that our experience in the game is contrary to what the devs say it should be, and what their statistics say the game really does. IOW, that they are making changes based on false assumptions.
I don't question that "the majority" of players are doing missiosn at any given time. But that statistic is bulllshit.
At any given time, Id bet a lot that most of the heroes playing are at Level 10 or lower. Go to Atlas, Kings, PP, Galaxy and do a whoall, then compare to Bricks or FF.
At low levels, missions rock. The mobs are about what you'd handle on the streets, you don't have to go very far, you can kill mobs on teh way, and the mission bonus is high enough to matter. IOW, at low levels everything Statesman says is true.
At high levels, you just can't do missions. I feel really, really bad forming a team in Brick, and then saying, "Oh, btw, I'm doing a mission in Perez Park. In the forest. Let's go." I might as well just saddle people w/ debt, b/c they're basically blowing 30 minutes of game anyway.
I didn't want to actually point this out, but I keep seeing that "Most people do missions, so missions are ok" stuff in this thread. [censored]. That isn't true throughout the game.
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps if you learned the difference between a trial zone and a hazard zone you could chime in
Faultline is a hazard zone. Just like Perez and Boomtown and Dark Astoria and the Sewer Network and the Abandoned Sewer Network and the Rikti Crash Site.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, the irony. Yes, the person was wrong about PP and Boomtown. Those are Hazard zones. But, Faultline IS a Trial zone. As is the Sewer Network. Look at the in-game help or follow those links. Learn something.
[ QUOTE ]
Well you're right about one thing for sure ... This is my first MMO. And ironically, I'm not a Comic Book fan either ...
I've been a gamer for years (I'm an old guy) ... But never liked the idea of paying to play (and still don't really). That's not to say I'm an online gaming newbie ... I played Blizzard's games from 1996 to 2004, so I'm very familiar with the development progression of games (ie. nerfs and changes). In my book, they are the BEST bang for the buck gaming company out there, buy it once and play it for a really long time (some of the most replayable and well balanced games I've ever seen) ... Well ... Until WoW that is (which I have very little interest in btw).
A friend of mine who was following the development of this game kind of ... Talked me into pre-ordering, based on the fact that I could play in late beta and get an idea for very little expense.
Obviously I liked what I saw.
I understand your concerns ... And actually appreciate the discussion (something all too rare on gaming forums). I also fully understand that statistics can be manipulated to show anything ... *coughtheeconomyisgreatcough* ... And I don't want to be forced into grouping (if I don't feel like it) either. And I don't "blindly" trust anyone (except for my wife - who btw isn't playing this game, but who games quite a lot), let alone a salesman (I didn't fall off the truck yesterday - I know all about business and have owned a few in my days - hence my assertion that Statesman has nothing to gain by lying).
But in reading this thread, and all of Statesman's comments in here (and in other threads recently), in combination with what I see in the game ... I had a different reaction than many folks seem to have had, to what he's trying to accomplish and the direction he wants the game to go. I think he's trying to make it a better game (from my perspective), not just doing what he wants to do.
Yeah ok ... I have an optimistic streak too.
[/ QUOTE ]
Old guy here too..no interest in comic books..most of my "Heroes" come from my imagination, or are melds of 3-4 different popular heroes...good example...mix Case from Neuromancer with Felix from Armor, with the Master Chief from Halo, and toss in a dash of Finn Mac Cool and Gaius Julius Caesar..and you would probably have Culann SunStorm..my primary..the 40 Blaster.
For Statesman, I agree..I think he's trying to make it all come together..I just don't think it's working as intended..sort of like when you're driving, you overcompensate trying to make it all come together, and wreck instead. Good intentions..the best..but it doesn't work out quite the way you intended.
And I will admit..of those fingers I can count on..my wife is #1, and well..I have 3 fingers and a thumb left.
Last thing...I think the primary difference between you and I is that perhaps I am jaded....too much time in MMORPGs where things -did- go wrong...and now I've sort of subconsciously taken the "Prepare for the worst" stance cause it's happened before...EQ and AO were tremendously educational in these respects.. (lmao)...
But yes..despite the fact many people probably THINK I'm a Troll..I am actually just very ornery, very passionate in my speech, and just a wee bit headstrong...I would be the one to shoot first, ask questions later, and the first question be, "Did I get 'em?" (grin)
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, think of +2 after his change as being what +4 is currently (XP, difficulty, etc. I'm assuming XP here). In that case, the change still has the following negative effect:
Harder to find appropriate enemies to hunt. Why? Because right now my level 32 blaster can get some return for everything from -2 to +4 (-2 isn't much *per* but the fights are at least very quick) That's a far amount of spawns that I can tackle, without much time looking for just the *right* one. Cut that range in half, from -1 to +2, and even though the XP is the same for the mobs I *do* fight, it is harder to find them.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all given the previous comments that they are happy with the rate at which people are advancing I thing its a given that the rewards will increase as well. If you dont consider a -2 worthless now it is unlikely that you will consider a -4 worthless under the changes he is looking at.
Secondly since the drop off point is still 5+ levels you can still go after things that are +4 without running into the purple patch. Sure it will be as difficult as something 8 (for example) levels above you was before the purple patch, but that was doable for groups then I dont see why it wouldnt be now.
IMO what he is looking at is reclaiming the -3 to 0 mobs so that they would be viable and desirable targets. This in fact widens the range of viable/desirable mobs considerably. Instead of single players looking for small groups of +3/+4 and small teams looking for large numbers of the same soloist would (hopefully) for -1/+1 2-4 player teams either for +2 to +4 of larger groups of 0 to +2 and teams of 5-8 could look for moderate size spawns of +3/+4 or very large spawns of +1/+2.
Notice it doesnt reduce the options at all it greatly expands them because the usable range of mobs more then doubles.
This also reduces the level spread problem because the group as a whole is not going after mobs close to the drop off at 5+. If you have a team going after +2 - +3 a damage dealer even 2 levels down is pushing their limit. If you have a situation where the sweet spot for that same group is 0 to +1 the same damage dealer can be 4 levels down.
Think more in terms of shifting the whole difficulty scale by 3-4 levels. If you are happy going after -1 level mobs (at level 30) then you would be able to go after -5 level mobs for the same difficulty and reward afterwards. If you consider +4 the norm you get the same results by going after +0 which in turn still leaves lots of room for teams to go after +1 to +5, though, as he indicates 8 person teams may still need to search out places where the spawns are very large to take suitable risks and get suitable rewards.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, this *might* actually not be harmed by Statesman's changes. Suppose the "purple patch" stays exactly as-is (+5s are too tough to fight). But +4s are worth as much XP as +8s currently would be worth (and as hard etc). Now you've actually gotten rid of the purple patch, effectively. Yay!
[/ QUOTE ]
This is why he said the purple patch wasnt the issue. The effects of the purple patch were a symptom of the real problem. (That people were forced to go far above the content designed for them to get a suitable challenge) What he wants to do is fix the real problem at which point the symptom becomes irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What he intends to do is make everything more difficult after level 22 so that you 4 player team cant take down those mobs and needs to find smaller spawns of lower level mobs.
[/ QUOTE ]
How is it nerfing the 4 player team? They can still find spawns of the same difficulty they were fighting before just labeled with different (more accurate) colors. Since rates of advancement are all relative there is no right or wrong rate of advancement it doesnt really make a difference whether they tweak them or not.
My guess is that they would of course, given that they have stated that they are satisfied with the current rates overall. This is, however a relatively easy thing to tweak so it certainly isnt going to be a deal breaker either way.
Ah, so by nerfing 4 person groups, 8 person groups will become more desirable. Lovely solution.. Hope they're serious about increasing xp gains proportionately, because it'll be very frustrating otherwise.
I thought it was a nice change from other MMORPGs, where we actually get more powerful as we level, capable of taking higher cons. Too bad it was unintentional, and they're "fixing" it.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think any of us think the dev's want to make a worse game?
[/ QUOTE ]
From reading a fair chunk of the posts out here ... Yeah. The complaining about things that haven't happened, in combination with completely not reading/understanding what the Devs are saying they are trying to do, would lead to the conclusion that there is a percentage of the posting public that think Statesman is trying to ruin the game.
You yourself are doing it too ... You say at low levels missions rock (I bet from an exp per hour point of view), but that isn't true throughout the game.
I read that and think ... You're only concerned about exp per hour and probably build for success and not for fun (granted you may have fun in getting exp per hour).
But Statesman is wanting to make missions (heck, the whole game) consistant in the late game, with missions in the early game. Wouldn't you think that's a good thing ??? In reading your post, I can't tell.
As for where players are ... In MY experience, Hazzard and Trial Zones are MUCH LESS populated than city zones. This is not just Atlas, Galaxy, and Perez Park ... This is everywhere.
The majority of missions are in city zones ... They're doing missions.
There's no need to get yourself all worked up over it (to the point of cussing) ... It may be that you feel strongly about something, but if you can't express an idea without being censored, then you won't be taken as seriously as someone who does. Just a bit of a constructive suggestion.
You know nothing about my playstyle or what I like, so [censored]. As for "fun" vs. "experience," anyone who thinks getting as much experience per hour shouldn't be possible doing things that are "fun" is a moron.
If you think Hazard Zones are empty b/c they lack missions, you're just plain wrong. They're empty b/c (1) no trams go there (2) if you need a team, you can find a team more easily somewhere else; (3) you can't take in low-level SK's; and (4) you can grind just as well somewhere else.
* * *
Look. Statesman posts that, essentially, everybody already likes missions. IOW, he's indicating that per the dev's stats, right now, as we speak, missions are doing fine and therefore only need minor tweaks.
Statesman also decides dozens of posts pointing out exactly what is wrong with grouping. He has posted, several times, that he doesn't see where there's a grouping penalty. Right now, as in right now, on Live, he doesn't understand why people think there's a penalty to grouping.
So let me ask you. If the dev's think that missions, right now, are doing ok, and think that grouping, right now, is doing ok . . . what are the chances that any change is really going to fix anything?
And then he posts worthless statistics like "the majority of players are doing missions at any given time." You could also say "the majority of players is under level 10 at any given time." And in any event, a sizable minority doesn't take Hasten or Speed Boost because they think it just boosts movement speed. Just becuase people do things doesn't make it smart or right.
[ QUOTE ]
First of all given the previous comments that they are happy with the rate at which people are advancing I thing its a given that the rewards will increase as well. If you dont consider a -2 worthless now it is unlikely that you will consider a -4 worthless under the changes he is looking at.
[/ QUOTE ]
That depends greatly on the *type* of change. A -2 isn't "worthless" now because I can kill it nearly instantly and move on. If a -4 will be the exact same (or easier) difficulty and the exact same (or greater) xp as a -2 is now, then yes.
[ QUOTE ]
Think more in terms of shifting the whole difficulty scale by 3-4 levels. If you are happy going after -1 level mobs (at level 30) then you would be able to go after -5 level mobs for the same difficulty and reward afterwards. If you consider +4 the norm you get the same results by going after +0 which in turn still leaves lots of room for teams to go after +1 to +5, though, as he indicates 8 person teams may still need to search out places where the spawns are very large to take suitable risks and get suitable rewards.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good point. I hadn't thought that part through enough apparently. I mean, there's still the potential that things *won't* work out that well, but I might as well hope for the best when that hope isn't inconsistent with the statements they make.
I have now seen a few posts that tout Faultline as a trial zone, along with Terra Volta.
You can call them what you like, but they are no different then what we have agreed is a hazard zone. The spawn sizes are no different for a single person then for an 8 person team. I checked that today just to be sure I hadn't missed anything.
Symantics aside, there is zero difference between a hazard zone and a trial zone.
[ QUOTE ]
You can call them what you like, but they are no different then what we have agreed is a hazard zone. The spawn sizes are no different for a single person then for an 8 person team. I checked that today just to be sure I hadn't missed anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. Go to Atlas Park. Count the number of foes in a spawn. Go to Faultline. Count the number of spawns. Atlas Park - city zone. Faultline - Trial Zone.
IS that on Test, or Live? I think a lot of confusion comes b/c Statesman might be posting about Test server, and players are posting about Live servers.
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. Go to Atlas Park. Count the number of foes in a spawn. Go to Faultline. Count the number of spawns. Atlas Park - city zone. Faultline - Trial Zone.
[/ QUOTE ]
So then what is Peregrine supposed to be???? There are groups of 8+ Rikti on the beaches. Same goes for Nemesis and Possessed scientists.
Geko even says it here: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showf...v=#Post1339296
[ QUOTE ]
*Alone, it would kill most level 50 minions in a spawn (Peregrine Island spawns are 10+ villains)
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can call them what you like, but they are no different then what we have agreed is a hazard zone. The spawn sizes are no different for a single person then for an 8 person team. I checked that today just to be sure I hadn't missed anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. Go to Atlas Park. Count the number of foes in a spawn. Go to Faultline. Count the number of spawns. Atlas Park - city zone. Faultline - Trial Zone.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good lord, there is no hope.
Atlas Park is a CITY ZONE. You even said that in your post.
Now reread what I posted, I am comparing a hazard zone (perez et al.) vs what you have called a hazard zone (faultline). There is no difference between a hazard zone and a trial zone other then symantics.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
My opinion is that Statesman is going to try to make a trio of level 35 (or any level) white minions just as challenging to a level 35 character as a trio of level 5 white minions was to a level 5 character.
If you had no trouble wiping out three level 5 minions at level 5, then you may also have no trouble taking out three even con minions in the future. If you struggled with them, you might find yourself struggling again.
I like that plan, simply because facing larger and larger numbers of even con enemies is just a method of inducing video lag.
Statesman's tricky task is to re-balance the XP gain so that people who are wiping out groups of oranges now won't be screaming for his head on a platter. Increasing same-level challenge will come with increased XP, but the question is whether it will be enough. I don't know, I don't wipe out groups of oranges like you do. And neither of us are quite at the 30+ target level.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. Go to Atlas Park. Count the number of foes in a spawn. Go to Faultline. Count the number of spawns. Atlas Park - city zone. Faultline - Trial Zone.
[/ QUOTE ]
So then what is Peregrine supposed to be???? There are groups of 8+ Rikti on the beaches. Same goes for Nemesis and Possessed scientists.
[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect that at lvl 40, you should be powerful enough, smart enough, and capable enough to handle 8+ Rikti. That is, if you got to lvl 40 legitimatly (read: no power leveling...actually playing the game and learning tactics...adpating to situations...etc.)
Trong, thank you for opening this thread. The first reply to you ended with an 'end of story' but that has proven to be anything but the case.
I don't think any thread on these forums has ever changed my opinion more about the game than this thread and it's basically from reading Statesman's replies that I've come to realize that at least some of the devs are thinking way too much in inside of the box that was their original vision.
It's hard to blame them. They cannot play the game from our perspective because (1) they know it intimately inside and out and (2) they cannot afford the time to play even 1 average AT from 1 to 50. I hope for their sakes they find a better way to connect with the game.
It's is clear that MANY people want to solo and MANY people would like to group if it were more productive/convenient/etc. As it is, grouping is not productive for many people and simply forcing people to do so by hurting soloability is the wrong way to go. If you want me to eat the plate in front of me, don't force it down my throat - make it taste better.
Making the game harder will alienate casual players. If people want challenge, there are so many ways right now to get it. For example, just roll another AT that is more challenging to play or try hunting a different group of villains.
I would like to see the game become like a good ski resort. Where the beginners/intermediates/experts can all get to the top of the mountain, but each gets to choose which way they go down (easy/medium/hard).
50 Fire/Dev | 50 AR/Dev | 50 Ninjas/FF MM | 50 Bots/Dark | 50 Kin/Rad |
44 EM/Regen | 39 BS/Regen | 38 Kin/Elec | 27 Thugs/Pain
"Rare is the man so noble that he will always give thanks for that which is freely given." -Jock_Tamson