Philosophical ramblings, what's the point of 50?

In EQ I was part socializer, part explorer, part achiever - I just never achieved end-game stuff. I missed out early in the games beginnings, on things I really wanted because "the vision" removed it, or it was later characterized as "overpowering", or "not working as intended".

This time, I made it to 50 before I could get pi!s!s!ed off about the incessant tweaking of powers and ATs that incites the masses, but never really balances anything according to the people who play the game.

That is part of the reason I am 50 now.

That being said, I am hopeful that more content comes in (on a 3 month cycle - yuck) sooner rather than later.

If you aren't having fun, then stop playing. Nobody is making you. We should adapt to the developers, not the other way around. I don't enjoy the Resident Evil and Silent Hill games, so guess what? I don't play them.

It's just a game, guys. We need to step back, and remember that from time to time.

A very well-thought post. Some sporadic comments:

[ QUOTE ]
This commitment though, to compete at that level required massive amounts of time invested as well as a lot of political involvement. But, alas, I was in love with becoming more powerful as a player. Saddly, CoH has no equipment to strive for. It could be argued that the super powered enhancements that you get from Hamidon would be “Striveable” worthy, but they just don’t peak my interest.

[/ QUOTE ]
When designing an MMORPG I think you need to keep two questions in mind (not that I have any experience in designing such, but...) One, is the proposed activity fun? Two, is it in genre? Fun should trump genre all the time, but I think it's important to keep genre in mind when creating the fun.

An example is (was?) SWG's starting gameplay for combat characters of "go hunt critters for currency." This struck me as solid MMORPG thinking but not really Star Wars thinking. "Go hunt thugs for currency" seems more in line with Star Wars... and comic books, so CoH did this well. ("currency" being Influence, e.g., fame, renown, what-have-you, since money for heroes tends to be a sideline issue -- Peter Parker's money woes, Bruce Wayne's billions, etc.)

That's the problem I have with loot: it doesn't really fit in with the superhero genre, specifically the four-color, Jack Kirby style comics that seems to form the baseline of CoH. Cyclops doesn't strip the guard of his flack vest and stun baton and hang onto the equipment for several issues afterwards, even though it might make "real world" sense. Instead you get Enhancements, which (to me) just represents a way of learning to use your powers better. I'm not sad about this design decision at all; I recognize that it isn't to everyone's taste, though (including yours).

[ QUOTE ]
The third reason to getting to level 50 was for Player Hunting/Player Killing etc. While the EQ PK system was flawed, it evolved over time making higher levels worth while. Dark Age of Camelot was centered on the combat aspect, the reason TO get 50 was simply to eliminate the other guy. {snip}

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate on this? I'm not a DAoC veteran (I only played it for a little while). Could you only do PvP (barring duels) at level 50? Was it a matter of being "the top of the heap", i.e., you were able to beat up lower level PCs? PvP *is* coming to CoH, but if that's a main draw for you I certainly don't advocate being bored waiting for it.

[ QUOTE ]
The final reason to reach the maximum level was just because it’s fun to get to the end level. When I play a MMORPG, leveling should just be something that happens while I’m doing other things. I don’t think any game has quite nipped that yet though...

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely about the levelling bit. As other people have pointed out on these forums -- NinjaPirate has put things pretty well in other threads -- part of the problem is the way MMORPGs handle reward systems. It's easy to lose sight of just playing when you're hungering after the next power, especially when playing the game gets repetitive. When you fixate on the next thing (levels here) that feeling of the "grind" becomes magnified. I'm not saying "you're playing the game wrong" by any means. Tetris was a grind to me, and we all know how unpopular *that* was.

[ QUOTE ]
When I log into CoH it’s *work*: boring, tedious work. Why does it take so long to level in City of Heroes, I believe the answer is very obvious, it’s because City of Heroes is a business, and businesses exist to make profit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that it's a business decision to keep progression slow so that people will keep playing. Not only so that the company keeps getting your monthly payments, but so that there's enough people here to keep the "community" aspect alive. Not very massive if people play for two months, max out, get bored, and move on. The hope of the developers, I expect, is so that the gameplay itself is interesting and varied enough to keep people's interest. Your perception is that it takes a long time to level in CoH; I don't find that an issue (barring certain spots in the game). Perhaps I should add "yet": level 50 looks very, very far away right now for me. Viva la difference.

I've babbled enough.

cuppajos post explains so much.

she explained what kind of gamers play mmos - and guess who she left out. or guess who in general, gets left out.

challengers. those who like a challenge. those who play for the fun of the battle. the challenge.

this yet again afirms my opinion that mmos are not designed first and foremost with battles in mind, but rather all the other stuff.

im not saying they do not include battles in their development, im just saying its not given as high a priority.

for example. a first person shooter and an rts both put how the battles go first and then how the graphics and bla bla bla go. at least most do that. (some just try to sell a pretty game.)

if this game had been designed around battles, we would have more mobs acting like those in CoT portal missions.

as of now most mobs are just like herds of stupid cattle that can kill you if they can insta kill you or if they can hold you or if youre not playing well.

but therye there to be harvested. its not so much about the battle.

[ QUOTE ]
she explained what kind of gamers play mmos - and guess who she left out. or guess who in general, gets left out.

challengers. those who like a challenge. those who play for the fun of the battle. the challenge.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd read the link she provided before passing judgement. I personally skimmed it, but from what I saw "Achievers" fall under the "challenge" rubric. The idea that they're winning a tough battle gives them a sense of satisfaction.

[ QUOTE ]
There has been a plethora of research done in regard to what people get out of RPGs. One of the papers that sheds some great light on MMOs is actually a paper about MUDs - Click Link Here!

[/ QUOTE ]


Those who have never touched a text only game would probably be shocked to the number of people who put so much time into them... I had played realms of despair (MUD) for 3-4 years. Sadly, it cost me my social life but oh well.

Yeah you can just open up the back of a Champions manual to get all the gaming personalities or read Steve Jackson's net postings from 10 or so years ago. All of that is covered in there.

My reason for wanting to play to 50. Hmmm. I am reminded of a line from The Outlaw Jessie Wales:

Soldier: You can't kill em all Jessie!

Jessie: I know.

Soldier: Then why are you still here?

Jessie: Cause I ain't got nothing better to do.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the papers that sheds some great light on MMOs is actually a paper about MUDs - Click Link Here!

Its kind of a gamer personality type – most people have a primary types, but will do other types of gaming to achieve the goals of their primary type.

Killers want to impose themselves on others.
CoH examples –
Killers – Griefers/KSers

A good MMO tries to make all types of play available in their games.

A good player realizes that games are different things to different people. {edited for relevance}

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you cater to Killers, since their fun depends on ruining the fun of all the other types of player? How does that make a "good MMO"? That is like the legal system catering to rapists because 'that's how they have fun'. I don't see it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this was oversimplified. From what I'm gathering from the paper, the "Killer" type really, really likes PvP. In extreme cases the "Killer" type becomes a griefer because they get to beat up "someone else," fairly or not.

CoH as it stands doesn't have a PvP outlet, therefore the Killer type is either frustrated, consoles themselves with a better PC than someone else, or (in extreme cases) does griefing.

That's my take on the situation, anyhow -- I certainly can't speak for CuppaJo.

Count me an explorer... leveling up means opening up content.

No flame intended but I am truly bewildered at someone who's played EQ saying:
[ QUOTE ]
When I log into CoH it’s *work*: boring, tedious work.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I just don't see it. EQ was boring, tedious work. CoH is fun.

[ QUOTE ]

Explorers want to see/do everything.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's me. I don't care about XP/hour, I'm not into socializing, and I don't want to bother other players. I want to play the content, get caught up in the stories and plots, and if I get to 50 someday then that will be cool. No hurry.

I want to start by thanking to two individuals that posted research, both made for interesting reads.

[ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate on this? I'm not a DAoC veteran ...<snip>Could you only do PvP (barring duels) at level 50?...<snip> Was it a matter of being "the top of the heap"

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually about 1 year into DAOC they did implement battle grounds for lower level people, this was a nice place to hone your battle skills.

But, hymm... let me try to sum up DAOC. There were three realms. Each realm had 2 relics. These relics provided you with your power. If I had to convert it to CoH terms: Imagine having a relic meant that you recieved an additional +10% accuracy and +10% damage on all your skills. Now, if you loose your relic, the people who stole it got YOUR +10%. Ideally you would want all 6 relics, this would give you +30% accuracy and +30% damage. The reason you wanted to get 50 was because you would be the most benefit to your kingdom in getting these relics. There were also zones that you could control, imagine if Kings Row could only be controlled by one faction. So if the Villians had control of Kings Row *no* one could enter kings row that wasn't a villian. It was really a very exciting time, especially when you had a LOT of relics, newbies leveled faster and quickly became soldiers on the front line.

[ QUOTE ]
No flame intended but I am truly bewildered at someone who's played EQ saying:

Sorry, I just don't see it. EQ was boring, tedious work. CoH is fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's odd. I never found it tedious, because Alternate Experience came SO quickly at level 65. I'd make 6-7 dings a session. And it was easier to be social in EQ.

On top of that, my Dings had a VERY tangible result. If I got 10AXP, I did more damage or was a better healer, or could do a neat trick. When you saw that you had 400axp, you *really* felt powerful. It's something that you can't explain though...it's something you have to feel. I worry that when I hit 50, I'm not going to feel powerful, and that's the void that concerns me.

[ QUOTE ]
er, I don't have the quote, but it was something along the lines of "If you don't like the game, then quit"

[/ QUOTE ]

My moral dilema is that I *really* would like to like CoH. *reads that twice*. I've even applied for work as a game content designer with them (they didn't want me *sobs*). I think that CoH is one of the best things going right now, but; at the same time I feel that there needs to be more drive out there. Cuppa jo (sp?) said that there are four types of personalities that play CoH, and this is true of any MMORPG, I am what I consider a full-spectrum game player. I play for all the reasons I mentioned in my lead post. Right now, I want to enjoy playing CoH but I'm in a moral ...crisis of digital faith? I continue to play CoH, I *want* to see 50th, my hopes are that the game continues to evolve into something more.

There are some very interesting ideas in this thread. One of the best that I have read. I think that all these types of games get a little monotonous from time to time. I take breaks for a few days at a time and when I come back to the game, its fresh. When you start treating the game like work, you will start to hate it. I did that with Everquest. In the beginning, it was the funnest game that I had ever played but that feeling was lost when I approached it like a job.

CuppaJo says:

[ QUOTE ]
Killers – Griefers/KSers

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to completely misconstrue the intent of this thread for my own satisfaction - But I'm going to for a second.

It's good to see a Cryptic employee admit that there IS killstealing in this game.

It's alive and well, and ever a problem as it was on release.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you cater to Killers, since their fun depends on ruining the fun of all the other types of player? How does that make a "good MMO"? That is like the legal system catering to rapists because 'that's how they have fun'. I don't see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading the article, it doesn't look like the fun of a killer has to come from ruining other peoples' fun. In the most abstract, it's just that "killers" get their fun from having their actions affect other PEOPLE instead of the WORLD. So the defender who runs around healing and buffing newbies could probably be classified as a "killer" from that list.

The article basically outlines the two main axis of motivation:

- People who want to Interact WITH, and people who want to act ON.
- People who prefer their actions to be on the world (computer generated, the system of the game) or other players (live humans who respond better.)

"Killers" are just what the article called people who prefer to act ON things, and the things they prefer to act ON are other players.

As I see it, acting ON something just means "You are in control of the situation, and it responds/reacts to your actions." "killers" are just people who prefer to pick in-game actions that get reactions from other players.

For some people this means healing/buffing them out of the blue.

For some people, this means kill stealing from them, or kiting mobs to public areas.

They're both things that the game "lets you do". They're actions that are within the rules of the game. Are they both nice? No. But the point of the article is that affecting other people IS one of the major reasons that people play these games, and if you ignore that, then you're just losing that much of a player base.

I think the main value of the article is in how it talks about the interactions between these types of players, and how to maintain equilibrium. A game can survive if some of the players are "killers". In fact, it profits from it somewhat. ANY of those groups kills a game if the game caters to their extreme. And a game where only one type of group plays becomes stagnant. It's a GOOD thing that there are killers out there, because they DO provide interaction for people, and keep the game interesting.

The point of the article is that if you get too MANY killers, then you have a problem. But the same can be said of any of the others. Too many socials, and the game degenerates into a glorified, colorful chat channel. So you DO want to cater to your killer population... You don't want to have your game completely killer-less, because then the game is that much less interesting. The goal is not to get rid of all the killers, just to balance the game so that the killers do not overshadow the other types and disrupt the game.

I also think it's very reassuring to see the Devs quoting things like this. It's a nice reminder that, whatever it may look like from a player's point of view, the devs ARE thinking about things like this, and keeping them in mind when they do updates.



This book report provided courtesy of:

[ QUOTE ]
There has been a plethora of research done in regard to what people get out of RPGs. One of the papers that sheds some great light on MMOs is actually a paper about MUDs - Click Link Here!

One of the things you can see as you poke around the boards is these different player types represented in posts - and the conflict that arises from enjoying and preferring different things in games.

Its kind of a gamer personality type – most people have a primary types, but will do other types of gaming to achieve the goals of their primary type.

There are Achievers, Killers, Explorers, and Socializers.

Achievers want to level.
Killers want to impose themselves on others.
Explorers want to see/do everything.
Socializers want to talk about it.

CoH examples –

Achievers – Power Levelers
Killers – Griefers/KSers
Explorers – Badges
Socializers – Dance Club

A good MMO tries to make all types of play available in their games.

A good player realizes that games are different things to different people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard Bartle, nice, I admire his thoughts on the genre. He actually expanded on his player types in a book of his though, "Designing Virtual Worlds", by adding another dimension to the player types. (He added implicit/explicit in addition to acting/interacting and players/world). So....now he has 8 types.
The old "killers" are split into politicians and griefers. The old "explorers" are split into scientists and hackers. The old "socializers" are split into networkers and friends. The old "Achievers" are split into opportunists and planners. (of course...I won't be able to say all of what he has to say about it. The book talks about it pretty well, and there's other interesting things in it too)

A list of the new types, taken from his book(all credit, of course, goes to Bartle):

Politicians- players who act in an open fashion on other players. whether you view them as inspired visionary leaders or interfering, self-serving busybodies depends on how gullible or cynical you are.

Griefers- Bullies prepared to use force or other unpleasantness to get their way or be noticed.

Networkers- Players who interact openly with other players- even complete strangers - on any and all subjects. Less charitably, gossips.

Friends- Players who interact primarily with people they have known a long time and with whom they have deep bonds (often formed through adversity). They do not feel bound by the conventional rules of interaction, because they understand each other so well.

Planners- Organized achievers; decide what they want to do then go off and do it.

Opportunists- Achievers who go where their fancy takes them.

Scientists- Explorers who experiment in a thorough, methodical fashion.

Hackers(note: used in traditional sense of the word- Explorers whose understanding of the virtual world is such that they can proceed purely by intuition.

After this, he puts these types into "development tracks" which he imagines most players will mature through (they overlap a little, and can be switched through. The book has a graphic showing this)
Griefer-> scientist -> planner -> friend ("main sequence"
Opportunist-> networker -> planner -> friend ("minor sequence")
Griefer-> networker -> politician -> friend ("main socializer")
Opportunist-> scientist-> planner-> hacker ("main explorer")

A person can stall in development, they can switch tracks, they may never reach the end, but this is basically how people end up developing. He also flattens the chart a bit and explains the progression by a progression from instinctive -> learner -> doer -> expert

Of course....this is just an introduction. The book explains it better. ( I find this part particularly interesting because I love psychology and trying to figure out how people think )

A sidenote about the book, as I was reading it I kept coming upon things where Bartle says something that should be done (usually) for a good design, and thinking about how it's in City of Heroes. Cryptic may be new at this, but they know what they're doing...

[ QUOTE ]
There has been a plethora of research done in regard to what people get out of RPGs. <snip>

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting paper, thanks for posting it. Its kinda fun to place myself on the graph and classify others I see around the game.

Hard to read only because of the awful background color.

[ QUOTE ]
A good MMO tries to make all types of play available in their games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure thats true.... its certainly not intuitive.

It seems to me that different games do different things well... that specialization in products leads better games. Trying to do too many different things, ends up with none of them being done well.

Great stuff. I am following one of the arcs right now.
I started as an achiever/Plvl'r...Was on a race for high levels and the cool new content. I joined right after the first patch.
Raced for 30 thinking that was the lvl of the content I wanted, It wasn't. Continued race for 40 and began to feel the grind.
Was consistently getting a couple levels a week. Now in my low 40's im the explorer/casual gamer. No hurry to get lvls, only 8 more to go and im stuck. Done lots of badges, team with inefficient groups, sk everyone i see, and generally do the exact opposite of what i spent 40 lvls doing.
I don't want to Hit the cap ever. I would like to stay just below it so I always have new monsters and content to see.
I have spent more time at lvl 42 than any of my other levels combined. And enjoyed all of it.
Now I goof off,help folks, do weird stuff, and look for unique things to do. accolades, monster hunting, fight something I know will kill me, try crazy group hunting with lower at's, rsk, explore the highest place in each zone, kill my sk's(did i say that outloud?), help folks get rid of debt(especially the ones I helped cause). etc.

Hmm, I'll go from Networker to Politician? Bah, I've never been a griefer

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A good MMO tries to make all types of play available in their games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure thats true.... its certainly not intuitive.

It seems to me that different games do different things well... that specialization in products leads better games. Trying to do too many different things, ends up with none of them being done well.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that may be true from a game quality standpoint, its a financial requirement for MMOs to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. So, they to put some stuff in for all types. Also, I think maybe some of the joy of an MMO vs a single player experience is the interaction of the different types. Increased specialization would appeal heavily to 1 of the 4 and exclude (or be less appealing to) the other 3. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Interesting discussion....

DMC

I think one of the biggest mistakes CoH has made is the attempt to satisfy both soloists and groupers. I say this not because I think it's impossible, but that the dual goals cloud each other in more subtle ways than I would have guessed.

One problem is now blindingly obvious: the solo experience is not at all representative of the group one, so while you throw yourself into the game solo to get an understanding of it, you get bored quickly of the monotonous pace. A good group, facing a really hard mission will in fact be required to act quickly and generate far more of the harrowing moments that make a game exciting. It's not at all immediately obvious what the group experience is from the solo, so a lot of soloists come on complaining that the game is dull.

Secondly, and very much related, the fact that you start out solo guides you into a style of play that sucks the fun out of a good group experience. I like playing smart and not dying, but I equally like charging into a battle and letting all the ATs contribute to maximum effect and creating drama with the risk. The alpha strike/tank rush (well, blaster rush in CoH) gameplay style that is predominant here is the result of building a system that is centered on solo play, with group play just being a rampled up version thereof. It's just not very fun.

Anyone who's talking about leveling taking too long is effectively saying that the combat is dull. It's my opinion that on investigation, you'll find the above to be the core reason for this. While CoH has managed to build a combat system that is immediate, easy to get into and fun, supported by an AT system that provides clearly defined roles for players to subscribe to (and bend!) it's not excercised to it's full potential by the enemies and scenarios it's played out in. This unfortunately makes it a short lived thing. The only respite is the gaining of a new power, thus the obsession with leveling.

I'll be interested to see how the game evolves now, but they really need to pick solo or group, or at the very least split the game on those lines and focus on each as it's own concern. They do not lie on a single continuum.

I disagree. I believe that a game such as this can produce both a fun solo and team experience. We've come along way baby from the old days of coding.

Especially with instanced zones and missions. It makes the production of fun, rewarding content much, much easier.

Think about PvP for a bit. That HAS to be solo viable and also team viable. You can't produce a multiplayer game that says, you have to group or you can't enjoy PvP or PvE.

Unless the game has been created from the get-go to be one or the other its just not good business.

If the developers of this game are smart, and I'm sure they are, they will develop this game for both, solo and team player.

Grouping vs. soloing is a zero sum game. The less people that group the less people can solo.

Now, you can encourage grouping by having loot. But Coh has no loot.

People do group in Coh but from my experience the majority is duos. That tends to be the groups I get. You got tfs, which I've done a lot, and which are fun. But none post 40.

Here's what gets really tedious in Coh. Alpha strikes. Alpha strikes ruin the strategy of this game. I've been in so many groups where the blaster just runs in a boom, dead grp. Okay, I'm gettting exp. But what's the point?

Also, post 40 most scrabber/tanker builds don't need heals. Why? So they can solo? So why have defenders?

There are some great zones at high lvl, but because of the reliance on damge, because once builds can stack certain powers they're nigh on invincible, the game becomes tedious.