Statesman: Please don't make this mistake

I've seen a lot of posts from you about how you want us to play the game.

You really, really, want to think carefully about forcing the players to your vision.

This game was a wild success with how it played, even if it wasn't precisely what you wanted. I've seen a few games (Anarchy Online for instance) where the players weren't playing it to the developers vision, so "changes" were made that actually made the game less fun (part of the reason I'm here and not there any more).

The path you're currently going down: nerfing everyone or buffing mobs until we're firmly in your "kill 3 whites", travel as a group to the contact/mission is pretty scary. I don't think that game would be as much FUN as the one I got at release.

It might be better to set ego aside, look at how your players WANT to play the game (not at how YOU want them to play it), and build content/design around that.

Well, just my .02, I'd hate to see what happened to AO happen to CoH.

Kruschev

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen a lot of posts from you about how you want us to play the game.

You really, really, want to think carefully about forcing the players to your vision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped here in hilarious laughter.

Developers make games in order to realize their vision in the form of a game. That's why they do it. That's the whole [censored] point to the job. If you don't like their vision, then don't play their game.

What's the alternative? Your vision?

Haha.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that game would be as much FUN as the one I got at release.

It might be better to set ego aside, look at how your players WANT to play the game (not at how YOU want them to play it), and build content/design around that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, my laughter died down so I could read on, and then started back up right here!

So, YOU don't think that game would be as much fun as the one YOU got at release, and Statesman should change the way he's doing things because of this?

And then you have the nerve to say "set ego aside." Hahaha. Take your own [censored] advice dude. Plenty of players are perfectly happy to conform to the developers vision and intentions for the game. If we didn't trust them to know how to make a good game, we wouldn't be paying the $15 a month to play it.

What makes you think what YOU want is magically what the "players" want? Every player wants something slightly different. That's why it's imperative that the developers maintain their OWN vision and intent. Otherwise it will end up a soupy mess of "trying to please everyone."

SMART developers makes games to make money. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CoH's success says it's not broken... Gets more broken with each volley of nerfs that force us down 'the vision's' approach, though...

I've seen a number of games wane due to forced visions. We'll see if Cryptic wants to make money or force visions...

-- Xurbax

[ QUOTE ]
SMART developers makes games to make money. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, yah. That's a great way to encourage creativity and new ideas. Lets take your advice and make 4,000 EverQuests. It "ain't broke," after all.

[ QUOTE ]
CoH's success says it's not broken... Gets more broken with each volley of nerfs that force us down 'the vision's' approach, though...

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. Okay, I suppose if by "more broken" you mean "continually attracting new customers and critical acclaim," then I guess you have a point.

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen a number of games wane due to forced visions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you haven't. You have seen a number of games wane that probably would have waned regardless, and then applied your own silly assumptions about the "reasons" behind the waning. Provide anything remotely resembling concrete evidence that "nerfs" have ever directly contributed to the downfall of a game, beyond "This game had nerfs and it failed," and I'll concede the argument on the spot.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen a lot of posts from you about how you want us to play the game.

You really, really, want to think carefully about forcing the players to your vision.

[/ QUOTE ]


I stopped here in hilarious laughter.

Developers make games in order to realize their vision in the form of a game. That's why they do it. That's the whole [censored] point to the job. If you don't like their vision, then don't play their game.

What's the alternative? Your vision?

Haha.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a SOE dev?

Seriously though, a dev of one of these games does make a game to their vision, then a bunch of people like playing it a way slightly differently than they intended and you decide you dont' like that and make changes to force them to play it your way... well... don't be surprised if their fun factor is cut down.

Players who aren't having as much fun eventually leave, and that includes people who make the game fun for others(friends, SGmates, etc)

My SG used to be made up of ~10 guys from work and ~5 other RL friends/spouses.

From 15 people at release, there are now 4 active accounts in my SG. Thats just barely a 25% retention rate after 3 months.

How is everyone elses SG doing?

I think you fail to realize Icarus that there is a lot of competition in the MMORPG market. When an original vision of how a game should be played does not get realized, those developers who try and force the game into that direction lose players. When they lose players, they lose money. When they lose money, they have to cut back on staff. When they cut back on staff, customer service, updates, and timely bug fixes are few and far between. The players of MMORPG's set the standards now, not the developers of them. If they change the game as drastically as Statesman is wanting to at this point in time, they will lose many subscribers. They also will receive so much negative feedback that they will not gain many new subscribers to replace them. Hence, changing the rules of this game now will result in the loss of what makes this game possible in the first place, money.

“This is not a democracy, it’s a cheerocracy.”
-Kirsten Dunst, Bring it On

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that game would be as much FUN as the one I got at release.

It might be better to set ego aside, look at how your players WANT to play the game (not at how YOU want them to play it), and build content/design around that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, my laughter died down so I could read on, and then started back up right here!

So, YOU don't think that game would be as much fun as the one YOU got at release, and Statesman should change the way he's doing things because of this?

And then you have the nerve to say "set ego aside." Hahaha. Take your own [censored] advice dude. Plenty of players are perfectly happy to conform to the developers vision and intentions for the game. If we didn't trust them to know how to make a good game, we wouldn't be paying the $15 a month to play it.

What makes you think what YOU want is magically what the "players" want? Every player wants something slightly different. That's why it's imperative that the developers maintain their OWN vision and intent. Otherwise it will end up a soupy mess of "trying to please everyone."

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I hereby nominate you for fanboy of the month. You've made your feelings known, please dont spam every reply on this thread with your undying devotion to CoH, I'm glad you will play no matter what is done to your hero's.

[ QUOTE ]
SMART developers makes games to make money. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CoH's success says it's not broken... Gets more broken with each volley of nerfs that force us down 'the vision's' approach, though...

I've seen a number of games wane due to forced visions. We'll see if Cryptic wants to make money or force visions...

-- Xurbax

[/ QUOTE ]

But the game is broken. Smoke Grenades were fun for people who built that type. Until they got to a point where they all said "I'm bored this games not a challenge."

Cyrptic fixes Smoke so that it is working the way they wanted it to work from jump and every one crys Nerf. In some cases the same people who were saying the game is boring and not a challenge.

I play Tanks. Tanks have issues that need to be addressed. Part of those issues is the Disparity in level times. If player X can solo to 50 in 100 hours and player Y takes 500 hours thats a big spread.

Now its up to Cryptic as to how they want to address that disparity. In the case of the X/Dev builds the choice in part is to fix smoke and slow down that groups leveling. But the other part of it is to tweak down Tanker Melee end costs which shoudl hopefully cut the time to level for Tankers.

The Devs here seem to be taking a very balanced approch to doing this. Trimming some from the fast, and boasting up some on the slow.

If you want to insist that there is nothing broken when on my Blaster I can blow away Yellow Cons with a Single Shot, while it takes my non Fire Tank 90 seconds to drop the same level mob thats fine you can insist on that. But I play both and I say its broken, Blasters were and are over powered. The game needs more balance then it has.

Phosphorus

I also have to laugh every time I see someone complain about 'nerfs'. Exactly what have they nerfed? Smoke Grenade? Sorry, that wasn't nerfed, it was merely fixed to work the way that the devs designed/wanted it to work in the first place. By far, whenever they've made balance changes, they haven't nerfed anyone/anything. Instead, they've mainly given boosts to those areas that they feel need the most work. Not weakened others. This is one of the things that I love about this game. That the devs fix what's broken instead of bringing everything else down to balance with it. To be honest, usually when someone's whining about nerfs, they're mainly just whining because their AT isn't getting boosted while other aspects of the game are fixed or brought up into line with how they should be.

So instead of whining because your AT/Powers aren't getting boosted, why don't you just let the Devs fix and resolve any issues/bugs that are brought to their attention. Just because you may not see any problems, it doesn't mean that they aren't out there.

If you want the game to change to what players want, you've probably never spent much time in SWG. Their attempt to implement player desires is one of the worst mistakes in MMOG history. Sorry to say it, but players don't usually know what they're asking for.

What tends to happen is players want imbalanced characters. This leads to either tank-mage type characters that progress too quickly without a challenge and leads to boredom and more complaining that the game isn't any fun. Or it causes huge imbalances for other types of characters (which makes them want big increases in power) and lots of messy gameplay.

Players don't have the "big picture", they don't know what's best for the game in the long run. If you are really unhappy with how the game is going, make some suggestions on how to improve it. Positive suggestions are always your best bet. If that isn't working to your satisfaction, play another game. Nothing speaks louder than cancelled subscriptions.

[ QUOTE ]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. What did they fix that wasn't broken? Smoke grenade? Or was it the fire imps?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Kruschev let it go my friend, Calling the big I (and there are numerous things that can stand for), a Fanboy is giving him more credit than he deserves. He is a Troll and simply picked your thread to troll in today. I have read several threads he has deigned to post in and his MO is the same here as it was there; Trash the original poster and offer nothing worthwhile throughout the thread. So in the interest of keeping your cool...just let it go..he is and never will be worth your effort.

Have fun !

Nerf, nerf, nerf.

I'm so tired of hearing that whine everytime a change is made that someone doesn't like.

Statesman and others have said repeatedly that they are trying very hard to not "nerf" anything, they are simply out to fix things that are broken. Broken may equal fun to players who get the vastly overpowered skill (smoke grenade) or find the levelling loopholes, but fixing it isn't a nerf no matter how you break it down.

When the vast majority of the player base picks a particular power to the point that it becomes "must have" there is a chance it might be broken - fix it. When one or two ATs or classes are so advantageous to play that a clear majority of the player base plays them it might be broken - fix it. When one or two builds are so advantageous to advancement that a majority of people playing that AT use the build over others, it might be broken - fix it. When a power results in zero risk to a player, it might be broken - fix it. When a certain AT or power set is hardly utilized at all, it might be broken -fix it.

I especially don't get where from many of these whines come lately. They've actually been increasing the relative power of many ATs and skills as opposed to weakening others!!! Weakening one set to balance out a perceived weakness in another might be a nerf, but by and large that has not happened. Defenders, Controllers (mostly), Scrappers, and now Tankers have all had a good look and gotten some lovin' to increase their capabilities. How is that nerfing them?

And if the big guys say that many villians have been much easier to defeat than they imagined, so what? It's their game, their perogative. Folks should really stop worrying so much about how fast they level and spend more time enjoying what's actually in the game. I never understood this desire to tear through all the levels to hit maximum level (at which point the "fun" is mostly over). How is that fun anyway? I mean if you and I spend the same amount of money on the game and I stop to read the stories and do the missions (you know -- "content") and you just min/max and only do the things that level you the fastest, only to get to the end and complain that it was too fast or too easy or there was no content, who's getting the most bang for their buck?

Geez. Get over it.

[ QUOTE ]
I also have to laugh every time I see someone complain about 'nerfs'. Exactly what have they nerfed? Smoke Grenade? Sorry, that wasn't nerfed, it was merely fixed to work the way that the devs designed/wanted it to work in the first place. By far, whenever they've made balance changes, they haven't nerfed anyone/anything. Instead, they've mainly given boosts to those areas that they feel need the most work. Not weakened others. This is one of the things that I love about this game. That the devs fix what's broken instead of bringing everything else down to balance with it. To be honest, usually when someone's whining about nerfs, they're mainly just whining because their AT isn't getting boosted while other aspects of the game are fixed or brought up into line with how they should be.

So instead of whining because your AT/Powers aren't getting boosted, why don't you just let the Devs fix and resolve any issues/bugs that are brought to their attention. Just because you may not see any problems, it doesn't mean that they aren't out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was no mention of any specific nerf, or anything that I necessairly want boosted on my toons.

I was actually pretty happy with all my Hero's except my mind controller (they're kinda sucky).

What I don't want to see is progress soooo slow because we're "supposed" to be killing whites and things will be changed until that vision is met.

I've been attacked a lot in this thread, people assuming that cause my main was ar/dev blaster (rolled first week, liked the concept) that must be the reason -- truth is, its the 30s grind that makes me not want to play him. I see rolling back the purple patch as the key to making it more fun. The devs see forcing groups of 8 to hunt +4s as the answer (which of course would provide half the advancement rate for toons).

Well whatever

Kruschev

When making a game a developer will soon realize their vision of a game might not always be in line with the will of the players. A good developer will realize that it may be neccessary to sacrifice parts of that vision to keep the game in line with what the players have decided their vision of the game is. Developers who do not follow this path are ultimately going to turn away their own players and damage the game for everyone, developer and gamer alike, with the changes that follow in their attempt to force people to play as they had originaly invisioned so long ago.

Whenever a change is made to a game (fix, nerf, bug, whatever) all players ask themselves this question:

Am I having fun? Would I rather spend time playing this game or watching Seinfeld, going bowling, spending time with the wife, <put your favorite activity here>.

I honestly believe most people play this game for Fun, not for a challenge. If I want a challenge I will spend more time at work. I am looking to relax with my free time I use for entertainment.

That's all there is to it. Give yourself a week after issue 2 and ask yourself that question. Nothing else really matters. No one cares if one person leaves because they answer the question that they aren't having fun and would rather do something else with there time. All will care if thousands of people answer the question that they aren't having fun.

If Devs are able to track how frequently current users log on they can track the fun factor based on how often and how long we play after the patch and they will have the answer to the fun factor.

[ QUOTE ]
When making a game a developer will soon realize their vision of a game might not always be in line with the will of the players. A good developer will realize that it may be neccessary to sacrifice parts of that vision to keep the game in line with what the players have decided their vision of the game is. Developers who do not follow this path are ultimately going to turn away their own players and damage the game for everyone, developer and gamer alike, with the changes that follow in their attempt to force people to play as they had originaly invisioned so long ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah like Sony did with Everquest when they came out with Luclin and gave the players what they wanted. They also started cycling their game into the toliet.

Thanks but no thanks.

Phosphorus

[ QUOTE ]

And if the big guys say that many villians have been much easier to defeat than they imagined, so what? It's their game, their perogative. Folks should really stop worrying so much about how fast they level and spend more time enjoying what's actually in the game. I never understood this desire to tear through all the levels to hit maximum level (at which point the "fun" is mostly over). How is that fun anyway? I mean if you and I spend the same amount of money on the game and I stop to read the stories and do the missions (you know -- "content") and you just min/max and only do the things that level you the fastest, only to get to the end and complain that it was too fast or too easy or there was no content, who's getting the most bang for their buck?

Geez. Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I've done every single story Arc so far (probably more than you). I spend a lot of time helping SG mates (well used to, theres not many any more) SK'd to clear off their debt.

I don't even worry a TON about how fast I level. However, feeling like I'm making so little progress it will take me 10 nights of hardcore gaming simply to get 1 level isn't that much fun either.

The fact is, what CoH was at release was a wild success and people loved it. They loved that they could control the difficuly of what they fought, and the rewards scaled significantly. Adding people meant fighting harder things.

Then the purple patch went in, and it caused about 200 more balance issues with support AT's than it fixed. So now the answer is to nerf more stuff big time, and provide a bunch of small boosts to support AT's to bring the game in line with their vision.

I'm simply saying that is a dangerous route to go.

So you can get off your high horse, I like to build effective characters, but so does everyone. I've done task forces, story arcs (the arcs were fun, just not rewarding as they should have been), hunted trial zones, all mob types including their bosses, and probably died 10 times a level because I liked to push what I could do rather than sit and safely kill whites/yellows for max xp an hour.

Don't assume so much about me.

[ QUOTE ]

It might be better to set ego aside, look at how your players WANT to play the game (not at how YOU want them to play it), and build content/design around that.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statement highlights what is, IMO, one of the biggest dangers facing games today. Marketing.

Marketing is where games are not made based on the designers vision, but what the marketing departments think are sellable ideas. It's why "Sam & Max Hit the Road" was cancelled (no market for adventure games). It's why we don't see any more space sims (no market for space sims). It even reaches it's gullable hand into the design of parts of games. i.e. Too many puzzles in that level, current metrics are swinging away from puzzles.

The designer of Heroes of Might & Magic said that his greatest regret was listening to the marketers. Same is true with Richard Garriott (creator of the Ultima games).

Games are art, marketing has no place in them aside from trying to sell the games AFTER they are done.

So getting back to the quote. I say HECK NO! This is the designers vision, let him decide how it's to be done. That's not to say we should never post ideas, it's just the designer call to make the final decision about how something fits into his/their vision.

[ QUOTE ]
When making a game a developer will soon realize their vision of a game might not always be in line with the will of the players. A good developer will realize that it may be neccessary to sacrifice parts of that vision to keep the game in line with what the players have decided their vision of the game is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah, and as soon as you design the machine that magically quantifies the "vision of the players" when you're talking about 180,000+ people all with their own, often differing, opinions, then let us know and we will set to work making the perfect MMO. In the meantime, how about we let the developers make the game they want to make, and if we like it we will pay them for it.

[ QUOTE ]
Trash the original poster and offer nothing worthwhile throughout the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Worthwhile? What, you mean like complaining about "nerfs," and demanding the developers make their game to my liking instead of their own? Sorry I couldn't add my poop to the ever-growing pile of whiney smacktards who complain because some of the orange numbers on their screen got smaller, or because the game might actually be challenging now. In the future I will try to keep my posts "worthwhile" and stick to ridiculous demands, unreasonable complaints, and "this game is going to fail" asinine doomsday prophecies. Would that keep you happy?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you will play no matter what is done to your hero's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will play as long as the game is fun. My fun is not based on the size of the orange numbers that pop up from my enemies' heads, or on a few percentages that might be tweaked up or down.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you fail to realize Icarus that there is a lot of competition in the MMORPG market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and in the light of that CoH has garnered approaching 200k subscribers in their first quarter of release. That means they have at least a passing idea what they're doing.

So, what? Now you want me to place my trust in the players to start calling the shots? Haha. Read the forums for 15 minutes. Now imagine all the threads and posts and flames as people sitting in a board room discussing possible changes to the game. REALLY picture that. Then picture where the game would be 2 years from now. I'm picturing it now, and it looks like a toilet.

[ QUOTE ]
When an original vision of how a game should be played does not get realized, those developers who try and force the game into that direction lose players.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do? Seems like a totally arbitrary statement to me. Can you back this up with anything but personal opinion? I've played plenty of games that were "forced" in directions and improved greatly as a result. I could just as easily make the statement "When an original vision of how a game should be palyed does not get realized, a game does not get as many players. Those developers who try and force the game into that direction regain some of those lost players and have a chance to stay in business."

The truth is, developers who know how to make a good game keep and gain players. Those who don't lose players. It has nothing to do with whether or not they "bend to the will of the players," because as I stated, 180,000 have no single will to which to bend.

In the end, what all you whiners want is your own MMOG. Well, get off your [censored], go to school or hit the lab, when you have an engine and a demo, start hitting the publishers; when you get some capital, hire some developers and get to work. Then you can make the game you're demanding that Cryptic make "for you."

If you're unwilling or incapable of doing this, realize that you will play the game Cryptic wants you to play (or you won't), but you're sure as [censored] not going to take the wheel from them with doomsday prophecies and repetitive complaints about "nerfs."

One constant thing in the universe is change.

Embrace it like a sister.

Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
It might be better to set ego aside, look at how your players WANT to play the game (not at how YOU want them to play it), and build content/design around that.


[/ QUOTE ]
Says a */dev blaster whose wittle smoke gwenade is now no longer "broken". Need I say anything else?

Can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm agreeing with Icarus on this one. What I do not want to see here is some corporate bullnosed system that is designed to generate maximum capital and minimal expense. We have enough Microsofts out there already and don't need anymore. Let the developers create a game that they want to create. It's their dream, don't ask them to discard it simply for your enjoyment.

If they stick to their "vision" and build the game they want to build, there will be people to play the game and pay their salaries. Might be the difference between $50k/year and $200k/year, but for those of us who aren't money-grubbing corporate hounds, the chance to build and play the game of your dreams is worth much more than that difference.

My summary: Feel free to critique the game and offer suggestions and advice, but don't ask the authors of this work to make changes in order to generate more income or to fit the game to your desires or even the desires of the majority. It's their work, let them write it how they want. If you aren't enjoying it, then find something that you do enjoy. As someone else mentioned, there's plenty of MMO's out there to choose from.

- Pan