Philosophical ramblings, what's the point of 50?
By
ahaha,
Posted on: 2004-09-23 13:23 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ 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!
[...]
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.
[...]
[/ QUOTE ]
Nick Yee (who has been referenced earlier in the thread) has a new article on this topic just recently published on gamasutra.
One thing to note is that Bartle's types are not robust under factor analysis. In particular, the Explorer class so categorised doesn't really constitute a distinct class of player.
It's a really good article, well argued, with pretty graphs and everything. If interested in MMOG design, it's definitely worth registering and reading!
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
There I'd disagree... mostly on what you imply appeals to the widest audience. A game that has both cooperative and PvP elements is something that will appeal to a far smaller segment of the population than a game with one or the other. i.e. it is typically an audience LOSING decision to cater to killers AND explorers AND socializers.
and I think its a mistake to think of those as different 'players'.... it'd probably be more accurate to say that you have a 95% group in the middle with a mix of all of those.
i.e. The same person can enjoy baseball, diving, and martial arts. But baseball would probably not be improved as a game by having people snorkle to second base and then breaking the baseman's neck. What many designers lose sight of is "The Game". Some games will work well for multiple different play-styles... other won't work at all.
(There is a reason that Calvinball is not the world's most popular sport. It has everything right? It has something to appeal to everyone? how could that not be the best game ever?)
[ QUOTE ]
I want to get to level 50 for 4 reasons:
1) To see a plan come to fruitioin
2) To be able to go back and do all the old quests or new content I missed (exploration badges etc)
3) The ability to help others
4) The ability to be able to focus on a new toon
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you been reading my mind?
For me the point of 50: Realization of your Character's Base Potential.
I say base potential because it only takes into account the fact you will have all of your powers and enhancement slots at that time. With the exception of badge related enhancements, this is the max you can achieve for the character itself in terms of 'power'.
From this, you are able to use all of your powers to achieve goals/missions. With the advent of Exemplars, you have the ability to go back and experience content you missed by traveling with other folks on their way up to 50. Granted, you are at the mercy of the folks leveling up to have this happen as there is no way to voluntarily delevel to do content passed by on the march to 50. At least at lv50 you have almost the entire content open to you...
The march to 50 so far has been fun for me, but most of it has been solo. I like to progress to see new things, so most of my progression has been done in solo missions or tagging along as an SK to upper level toons. With the advent of 'Issue 2', the bump in mission exp was a godsend. Now the leveling path more closely matches the life cycle of contacts and gives the feeling of accomplishment while removing the boring grind to level up and get new contacts once the old contacts go dry.
My old SG was too stagnant in the way that few really seemed to want to progress to see new content. They had many alts, which is fine if that is what you like to do, but for me I get very tired of battling the same villains over and over with no change within their 'faction'. To them, I dont think getting to 50 is a big deal. They simply seemed to like the variety provided by the class system.
Max level in games so far will mean more as the game matures. As it matures, more of the player population will hit this cap. As a result, more content will be developed around it. As more focus toward more content for the high level game is made, the push to get to max level will be enhanced. Note that the path to get there will not be entirely ignored, it just lessens in importance. Do some research on expansions for MMOGs out there today that deal with levels and you will see that a majority of the content released is focused on the top 20% of the max level. (Lost Dungeons of Norrath possibly being the exception save for the fact that raiding there still was for the highend game.)
[ QUOTE ]
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?
[/ QUOTE ]
Fight more challenging foes. Alpha strikes don't kill bosses. Last night I did a level 40 mission (it was mine) with 7 other people. It was full of 5th column wolves and vampyres. Sure, our blasters went nova after some gathering by yours truly, where I would come streaking back needing heals despite running unstoppable. And guess what - we would still need to battle the bosses (at least), people still occasionally got dead (stuns/holds = bad in melee with bosses). And we had a good time. We're talking battle with upwards of 10 bosses at a time here. That's not a cakewalk.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, post 40 most scrabber/tanker builds don't need heals. Why? So they can solo? So why have defenders?
[/ QUOTE ]
See above. They only don't need defenders if they stick to things they can solo. Add in a defender and they should be attacking scarier things.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
In your opinion.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Some people were making in another thread comparisons with old Diablo 2 which certainly has been a Smash Hit in its time . What was fun in Diablo 2 ? First there was the "accumulation concept" , there was so much items to find that it was making the game exciting especially with the random drop . All these items , especially the unique ones often got players making new chars so they can try these great stuff they were finding .
Second : Level progression was ULTRA fast , about every hour or so whatever the level below 90 , one could expect to gain new power for his char and it indeed made the game a hook . In about a single day you could have a char able to at least try ALL the skills of his skilltree . Level progression was getting really slower only past the highest level so anyone had the chance to play with a fully skilled character long before level 80 or so .
Third : Simplicity of the game while having a lot of content for people who look at numbers and are min/maxing gave a lot of player plenty of hours to toy with the game .
Forth : Free play , yes lets say it , playing diablo online was free and it was an advantage for obvious reasons . However , people couldnt expect any real support and it was a huge let down in the later days .
Fifth : Fast action and very intuitive playing made the game appealing to all kind of crowd for quite awhile . People got bored and left often the game for awhile . But suddenly you got back that "need" to play and getting back online was easy business .
Ok , Diablo 2 had many flaws and problems . But in the end , overall , many people got sucked in that game for months . Still today , many people are talking about Diablo 2 as maybe the Best Game ever . I dont know if its still true. However ,it is a fact that Diablo 2 certainly was on the Top 10 for many months and only a very few gamer never tried this game and even fewer never had heard about it .
Ok , these were my toughts about Diablo 2 . Now , what was I expecting when i bought CoH and am i satisfied so far ? Remember , its only my owns views and i only speak for myself here .
First : I was looking for something different . I was tired of Medieval Fantasy settings and sword and sorcery stuff. CoH entirely gets the points here . 10/10
Second : I was looking for fast action and a game that wasnt too hard on my brain like D2 was . I just wanted to be able to log and to kill some stuff on the fly . CoH gave me that so far .
10/10
Third : I was looking to be able to improve my char fast so i can test many many builds quickly and be able to toy with all the skills available . CoH so far dont let me achieve this goal quick enough . For me , leveling here is too time-consuming as it is and when my chars barely reach level 14 or 15 im starting to get bored because the next skill available seem too far away to get and just a time-sink . Thats the worst problem i see in CoH so far . And i do know that some other MMO are even worst and i dont play them . 3/10
Forth : I was looking for diversity and customization options. Ill break this point in two parts . Hero costume customization is probably the best i have ever saw ! Possibilities are almost endless . For that 10/10 . About items finding and treasure hunting , its really poor . Ok , the badges are making it better now but these arent the kind of stuff you can trade with people or really use to enhance your char . These are more achievements even if some actually do something . Enhancements are the only stuff that a monster can drop and people certainly arent playing for the treasure drops in CoH . 5/10 .
Fifth : I was looking for good game support , constant updates and lag free servers . So far so good . Even if the game dont meet my personal expectations i must say the Devs are indeed making updates , patches and adding new content. At least i know they are here doing something . 10/10
Well , thats what i could think about at the moment . What critical move could do the Dev Team to keep me hooked at this game in the end ? For me it would be the ability to get to level 30 far more quicker than it is actually . And when i say far more quicker i really mean it . It is just the way i like to play and again its only MY point of view . All other views are as valid .
Thank you everyone to let me share my views in this forum.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
When I log into CoH its *work*: boring, tedious work. Why does it take so long to level in City of Heroes, I believe the answer is very obvious, its because City of Heroes is a business, and businesses exist to make profit.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest problem is that the reward doesn't justify the work. Doing missions or street sweeping just doesn't give noticeable gains in terms of leveling, so it makes things really SEEM like work. I played the World of Warcraft stress test, and I like that method of leveling a lot better. One could argue that most early level quests are collection quests, but at least I could get easily 1/4th of a level from completing the quest. It may not have been the most exciting thing in the world, but the reward justified the work in a big way.
And besides that, each quest had a different surrounding. It wasn't just "goto warehouse A that looks exactly like warehouse B and arrest criminal X that looks exactly like criminal Y." There was a variety of interesting enemies and zones to explore, each with its own theme and enemies.
One thing that worries me about City of Heroes has become apparent in the latest update. The Hollows is a new zone, yes, but it looks exactly like every other zone. I explored it for about 30 seconds only to realize theres nothing to see there. Nothing of interest. I heard the Shadow Shard is fairly cool, but I'd like to see more variety in earlier level zones instead of just the same old broken buildings that are seen in Boomtown, Faultline, and now the Hallows. New content should be fresh and exciting, and keep people coming back for more. Asheron's Call, in my opinion, was a good example of a game that was (and still is I believe) constantly updated with new and interesting content (new items, spells, quests, etc) and helped keep my interest far longer then it really should have.
[ QUOTE ]
I just recently beat the game Fable after a measly 16 hours of game play, which comes down to $3.15 per hour of game play.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did you really get to level 50 after 16 hours ???
How did you do that ?
Or is there something I did not understand ?
Cuppajo,
With all due respect just because someone went through the trouble of making up some categories doesn't make them right. In fact, the names of the categories are a dead giveaway that there was a strong bias on the part of the person who wrote them up.
Just one example - what about competitors? There are people who like competion, whether individual or team. In the model you reference that would be a "killer/socializer" which I think is a rather strange way of putting it.
Personally, I look at it this way:
Explorers, competitors, puzzle-solvers, and socializers. The latter isn't the best word for it - maybe 'fraternize".
-Jeff
[ QUOTE ]
Socializers Dance Club
[/ QUOTE ]
The first rule of Dance Club is you do not talk about Dance Club.
(Sorry. It had to be done.)
Wow! That paper is quite interesting! After reading over the first few pages in detail I decided I'm going to have to do the rest later (I'm at work =p)
As far as concerning what makes a player tick it seems that those four catergories are pretty accurate. Almost all players overlap into the all four categories a little, with a leaning towards one more than the others.
Recently I graduated from College with a Sociology degree (GO BULLS!) and I have long since wanted to do a study on the players of MMORPG's. My first problem with this is that I could find no real past information. Recently though, it seems more is popping up (at least here on the net). Mayhaps I could start doing something like this now! Well, at least in my own limited funds fashion.
Back on topic though, I think I'm probably an Achiever/Explorer. I can't really seem to figure our which I'm more of. Here in City of Heroes There seems to be a lack of tailoring for the "Killers". As far are griefing or KSing goes the game mechanics make it a much less viable thing to do than in other MMORPG's I've played. Though, I guess that's what CoV is for in the future.
Very, very interesting indeed!
Competetors are achievers. Not only do they want to be the first to 50/get the uberweapon/whatever, the want to tell everyone about it.
[ QUOTE ]
I just recently beat the game Fable after a measly 16 hours of game play, which comes down to $3.15 per hour of game play. <snip...and>Did you really get to level 50 after 16 hours ???
[/ QUOTE ]
The game Fable is an adventure game for the X-box. It was amazingly well done, looked beautiful and felt like an MMORPG while being single player. It is a *must* rent if you own an Xbox and enjoy that kind of third person fighting 
It's amazing, your actions dictate your appearance and social standings. So if you're evil, over time your grow frail, horns, glowing eyes. If you're good you devlop and aura, halo, etc... I say rent because the 16 hours I invested wasn't worth the money spent
Well, maybe I'm in the minority, but I like the stories. I like finding out neat things about the game world. Yes, lvling is faster street sweeping at times, but I still do all my missions first because I love feeling the imersion and reading the stories. My only complaint about that is when you get the same mission several times. But that's only a minor complaint.
Don't get me wrong, I love feeling powerful and like a hero too. If that was taken away, I'd enjoy the game much less.
I'm looking forward to the new story content that will be added to the game in the future.
[ QUOTE ]
think I'm probably an Achiever/Explorer. I can't really seem to figure our which I'm more of.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the problem with classifying any type of person is that reality in general does not neatly divide into chunks. I had not read the paper that Jo had posted before I wrote my discussion, yet; in my opening thoughts I determined that I was...
Achiever - My forth point, I just wanted to make 50th
Killers - I strive for competion in PvP
Explorers - I loved killing the Gods/Dragons in EQ breaking into Plane of time etc...
Socializers - In EQ I was extremely political, you can't be in a top raiding guild and not be.
So I cross all four realms, I believe that the more groups you're in the more hard-core and likely you are to be a MMORPG fanatic of sorts.
I would argue that people in one group will have the least enjoyment from the game and are the most likely to quit: This is evidence by some of my friends who were 100% socializers in EQ, most of them were out within a year. In Dark Age, I was a pure killer same with UO (I was a jerk of a Griefer hehe). I retired after only 1 year of playing. In EQ though, I was all 4, and played for an outrageous ammount of time.
*laughs* What an interesting theory! So, I guess my hypothesis is: The more groups you cover in a game, the more likely you are to enjoy it. I believe this is because MMORPG's are not catered to any one group, they don't do anything very well, rather everything is done to an acceptable level.
Ahh, then this leads to why I might be disatified with CoH...
Achiever - I'd like to see 50th
Killers - I can't kill other players saddly, so this is out
Explorers - Atlas Park looks like Brickstown looks like Pergrine... nothing really new out there. Any mob I can see in a mission I can generally see on the street. ...*there is the new shard though, I will see that when I hit 50, but I wouldn't say it "Drives" me*
Socializers - I find that the maturity level *ON THE WHOLE* is not the same demographic as me. I don't really enjoy socializing in CoH as much as I did in EQ. Everquest, the average age was ~26, I wonder what it is in CoH, perhaps it's the same and I've just been unlucky.
Upon reviewing this, it would seem I'm in a single group. This means that my expected CoH life span will most likely be about 1 year... I could probably write a white paper on this if I wasn't moving and starting a new job in 5 days hehe... much to look into though
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that MMORPG&#8217;s in general reward those that are most likely to cause greater profit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why live your life according to the way the game tells you to? The reason I haven't been playing other MMORPGs is because I cannot play them the way I want to. That doesn't mean they suck, it just means they are not the games for me. If CoH becomes like that, I will simply stop playing it and find something more appealing to do, that's all.
What I want (that is, not necessarily you) is to be able to play a game with my friends (supergroups and teams) even when they do not live near me (provider hosted game), and if we cannot all log in at the same time, I still want to be able to play with only some of them, or play while waiting for them (solo, pickup groups) or chat (social features). And I don't want me or my friends to have to stop grouping because they went on a vacation and have fallen a little behind on the level grind (sidekick, solo, now exemplar). I don't want to be made to feel like a pathetic weakling for the first month of play (easy leveling early on, and starting out on street thugs instead of rats). Most of all, I absolutely positively do not want to have to put 18 hours a day into the game just so I can get powerful enough to not worry about getting killed by griefers every 20 minutes (_no_ PvP).
Those are the reasons I like and play CoH. You will notice that none of it has anything to do with loot, or titles, or reaching level 50, or getting badges, or whatever. As long as the fights are tough and I have to think, I do not really care about new and changing content, honestly. When I play Counterstrike with my friends, the boards and weapons don't change that much. So what? We don't enjoy it any less for it. When I play a board game, there are no story arcs to speak of. And those that do exist, we know after playing once through. Again, that is me, and maybe it is different for you.
Yes, of course there is an appeal to seeing all the content the game has to offer, including the higher level powers. But, if, for example, the game turned PvP only, or got rid of sidekicks, or whatever, I would quit in a heartbeat and within a week I'll have lost all curiousity about hitting level 32 so I could get my last primary power. In other words, I am not playing to reach level 50 at all. I am playing to have fun and that is entirely unrelated to what level I am at. If I stop having fun past level 20 or whatever I'll just move on to an alt. If only levels 20-30 are fun, then I will make a decision based on how timeconsuming and annoying 1-20 are vs how fun 20-30 are. Level 50? Who cares? In 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 years who is going to even remember CoH much less base their opinion of you on whether or not you made 50 instead of stopping at 30?
The point is, the game fills a spot in _my_ life. If the game doesn't fill that spot, it is not a problem for _me_. Thus, I don't think you should be worried about what behaviors "MMORPGs reward." Just go and live your life according to what you value and don't worry about it. If you enjoy making 50, go for it! But if you are not having a good time, just quit and do something you enjoy instead. Life is too short to worry about a game vendor's expectations of you.
Simply put, the question is:
what is _your_ personal RL reason for making 50, independent of all the reasons the game says it is good for your _toon_ to be 50?
[ QUOTE ]
But in the end , overall , many people got sucked in that game for months . Still today , many people are talking about Diablo 2 as maybe the Best Game ever
[/ QUOTE ]
How can one categorize a game that sucks you in for months as the "best game ever"?
When I played pencil and paper RPG, a campaign that lasted only a few months SUCKED HARD. Good campaigns lasted many years.
There are games I've been playing on and off for decades, like chess, or tetris, or whatever.
Diablo 2 was fun, no doubt about it. But if CoH takes it as its model, it too will be something of interest for merely months. Accumulation of in-game junk and new eye candy is not what ultimately holds people's attention for a significant length of time. Even inter-AT play balance is not that important over the truly long haul. Look at a game like D&D, still going strong, despite the huge discrepencies in balance between classes and races.
[ QUOTE ]
When I played pencil and paper RPG, a campaign that lasted only a few months SUCKED HARD. Good campaigns lasted many years.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at a game like D&D, still going strong, despite the huge discrepencies in balance between classes and races.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman went into an interview not to log ago as spoke about this topic entiled: Pencils to Pixels: A Case Study with City of Heroes Pen & Paper vs. CRPGs
Here he talks about balance issued and differences between the two types of games. Interestingly enough, in a table top game players are more confortable with class or power imbalances. In many cases they feel that the time put into a character offsets this lack of power of vise versa. I believe he even gave an example involving D&D mages and how they those players don't mind being very weak to start and then gain immense power later.
MMOG's are an entirely different arena. for some reason balance is key in this situation at all stages of the game. Unbalanced situations lead to an overwhelming number of one type of power or class. This is even visible on these forums through everyone's talk about "Flavors of the Month".
I can totally agree that some of my table top gaming experiences have been among the best gaming experiences I've ever had. I don't think, however, that using the same equations and balances that those types of games use will bring about similar long lasting players in an MMOG.
That in essence is why this topic is so interesting. What draws individuals in to play this game with other people? Why do people strive for the goals they do? What keeps individuals into a MMOG specifically? How do you create a balanced world where all types of players can co-exist?
Some very broad questions indeed... way too broad even. I personally am most interested in the kinds of actions or interactions players engage in and what kind of world makes this interaction synergize the best. Would be a very interesting thing to study.
I had the privilege of exchanging a few messages with Dr. Bartle in Rec.games.computer.ultima.online back in the old days. I believe Raph had mentioned him, and he spotted the thread on a Google search, and dropped in. He really has done some very interesting sociological work pertaining to muds. (I even got an account to his Mud from him, but failed to use it...)
Many of his initial ideas have been expanded to the point where they look simplistic now, but the guy who invents Algebra is always going to look simple to the folks who use algebra to invent calculus. He's quite an interesting and amiable man to talk with, very intelligent, and open minded.
If I were blunt with myself, I would say that back in my most addicted online game periods, I was achievement oriented. It was some GOAL, that kept me playing long hours, grinding my way to some achievement. I eventually found that this was NOT the way to play these games. (at least not for me).
What I found is that the whole time I'm grinding and working, I'm NOT enjoying myself, but WORKING. When I finally achieve my goal, there are one or two days of exhilaration, which is generally followed by depression and eventually me quitting the game.
You see, to keep myself working toward the goal, I'm always telling myself that this is what needs to be done before I can "start enjoying" the game. Everything will be alright when I get there, it's where I need to get before I can start earning lots of money, or some other such...
THe problem is, achieving the goal rarely produces the expected rewards, and many times just as I got there, the game developers changed things so that what I had achieved became useless.
So, with the massive time sink it involves, and the undependable and short lived rewards, I've decided that I've been playing these games wrong. I now play to enjoy the JOURNEY, not the destination.
I play to explore, to socialize, and to help others. I like chatting with friends, I like hanging out at Blyde Square because lots of people run there for help when they get overwhelmed, and I like to do things just for the sake of doing them. (Last night I managed to get to the top of the Blyde Square Statue with only my super-leap power. This took some work!)
Ingot
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Actually, I take exception to the charictorization Killers = griefers / KS'ser.
I think a more apt description of a Killer is someone who is either 1. enjoying the combat aspect of the game and relishes the fight or 2. is hanging on for CoV / PvP.
IMHO, CuppaJo is wrong about what a Killer is.
You have some very good points in your post
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman went into an interview not to log ago
[/ QUOTE ]
I would love to read a transcript or something -- do you have a URL?
[ QUOTE ]
MMOG's are an entirely different arena. for some reason balance is key in this situation at all stages of the game. Unbalanced situations lead to an overwhelming number of one type of power or class. This is even visible on these forums through everyone's talk about "Flavors of the Month".
[/ QUOTE ]
I do not think this truly has anything to do with MMOG. It is true in pencil & paper games, too, honestly. There are always people around trying to game the system, and the ones who try to do so will inevitably be drawn to the currently perceived best thing. It exists even in business, where we call it "best practices."
I think it is less aparent in many pencil & paper games for many reasons. Probably foremost because the GM can always "fix" things by fiat and that cannot be done in an MMOG. But, also the wider community is not always as developed as an Internet based game. Nevertheless, you can easily find examples. Just one for example, the nerfing of the D&D monk in 3.5: http://tinyurl.com/4pqg5
I certainly understand and respect the view that one cannot really compare an online game to a tabletop game. No one seriously considers the fact that chess knights are gimped compared to queens to be a real problem.
However, I do not know if it so much an issue with the game as it is with the players. There are "powerlevelers" in pencil & paper games too, we just don't call them that. We say that they are "powergamers" or "munchkins," or are playing "Monty Hall" games, or whatever. If it is the case that it has more to do with the players than the actual game itself, then the problem cannot be addressed in terms of game balance. That is, if the game world (be it a pencil & paper campaign world or the server world) is populated by powerlevelers, they are going to be dominated by the FOTM folks. If it is dominated by role players, then you will see something totally different happen. That is true regardless of the actual AT balance in the game. Nothing is ever completely balanced, so the FOTM folks will always find the one that is just a tiny bit better and glom onto that. RPers don't care who is most powerful, they will go to the one with the best RP potential.
[ QUOTE ]
How do you create a balanced world where all types of players can co-exist?
[/ QUOTE ]
It is a basic tenet of business that one has to identify the market one is trying to serve, because it is impossible to serve everyone. That is not a flaw, it is just reality. Different people want different things, and so they require different things.
A mission cannot be simultaneously easy and hard, so a mission cannot appeal to "everyone." What can be done is to set up alternate versions of a mission, one easy, and one hard, which is basically what the mission difficulty slider is. A more crude way to do this is to simply designate some servers as +1 mission servers and others as +0 (and allow toon migration). In the same way, a mission cannot be simultaneously "good for teams" (that is, offering challenges for the unique advantages for teams) and "good for solo" (that is, not requiring the use of any advantages of teams). And, a game cannot be "good for casual players" (that is, offering easy progression for people who are on occassionally) and "good for dedicated players" (that is, challenging even for people who spend 18 hours a day online). In each case, alternatives (like the mission difficulty slider) can be set up, but those are alternatives, not one system catering simultaneously to discrete groups.
There is the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none." Trying to make CoH be all things to everyone will, in my opinion, just make it mediocre in all things and it will ultimately lose out to games that excel in their genere. I feel everyone will ultimately be far happier to let it be what it is supposed to be and instead to find the activity that makes one happy. The activity that speaks to you purely will be far satisfying than something that is making a compromise to give you a little taste of what you are looking for. In my opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I take exception to the charictorization Killers = griefers / KS'ser.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think what Cuppa was trying to say is that Killers in CoH really don't have a place at the moment, pure killers anyway. Most people aren't pure killers, they tend to be some form of hybrid. But if you are a pure killer playing, right now your only avenue is Grief/KS, because you want to take on the players, not the enviroment.
I know that when I was playing on a care bear server in EQ, there were many many times when I would say "MAN, if this were PvP I'd just smoke that guy/girl/guild." It certainly would make contested spawns a lot easier ;-)
[ QUOTE ]
I think a more apt description of a Killer is someone who is either 1. enjoying the combat aspect of the game and relishes the fight or 2. is hanging on for CoV / PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
Number 2 is certainly apt, I would think number one would typify a more "Achiever" type, becoming better at what you do, *but* against the enviroment.
I myself am certainly anxious to see the PvP side of things. Nothing get's the blood pumping like a good fight. The computer enviroments are stimulating, but give way to patterns. Humans give way to patterns also, but they are a much more stimulating fare! ;-)
[ 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 ]
I haven't read all this thread, but I'm going to reply in ignorance here anyway. Cuppa, I like most of what you've done, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment of what killers are in CoH.
Let it be known that whenever I've taken one of these personality tests, that I got less than 5% killer. Its not in my blood although it does crop up from time to time.
Killer's are the people who are planning, and waiting, on PvP. The ones who call for nerfs pre-emptively because they know that a certain power will negate their winning in PvP. The ones who take Teleport Foe and Phase Shift, because those won't be expected in PvP and will likely be insanely good strategies.
While the KSers/Griefers are likely, yes, the darker side of the killer mindset, I just think that a nicer way to categorize them would have been this. Killers are the people who want their character to outshine every other one in CoH, so that when PvP comes, they will be on top.
Good spot for some commentary on the mutability of facts. Hey, Cuppajoe, how do you like having people telling you and others what you said despite the fact that the author is clearly typed at the beginning of the exposition. Now, there is the possiblity of you actually being Richard Bartle, but I'm going to place that at the lower end of the percentages. Anyway, just wanted to point that out to people.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Please speak for yourself. As noted early on, different people get different things from the game. After playing for months, I am in no way bored with solo play. In fact I can play the same content with different characters, altaholic that I am, and still have a blast.
There are people who would be bored stiff by my playing style. Conversely I can get bored stiff with teams. I like to do my own thing, and spending a long time with a team means I'm compromising and doing what others think is fun. So I only team for specific missions, and that becomes unfun when I spend time trying to find others who are interested in doing them.
Meanwhile many people enjoy teaming and simply don't share my teaming outlook and have a blast at it. I think CoH does a great job letting people solo or team as they like, although of course there's always room for improvement.