[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for why we put Bosses in missions at all in other words, why isnt everything solo-able the answer is simple. We want gameplay that encourages the best part of the game: teaming up. Soloing is fine, but a MMP really shines when you meet other people and play alongside them.
[/ QUOTE ]
well that stinks. if it had said that on the box, i would never have bought this game. I really dislike social engineers, people who think that just because they like something everyone should or will if exposed to it. Why can't people accept that we just are not all wired the same and we will never all like the same thing. Fortunately, my Tank is still pretty capable solo'ing. slow with the end. problems, but still playable. I guess they'll need a bigger bat next time.
[/ QUOTE ]
I want to second this emotion. I don't see this move as 'encouraging', but 'forcing' of teams if you want to finish these missions. I've accumulated missions that I can't finish because it requires a team, and I don't feel comfortable playing with (im)perfect strangers. I also play pretty late at night and live on the left coast, so there's not as many people on. I would say in direct contradiction to Statesman that teaming isn't the best part of this game; I like being a superhero, in comics I read as a kid, teaming happened once a year in the annuals. Most of the comics I read were about the 'lone-wolf'.
Let me play at being a super-hero, don't force me to remember that this is an MMO. Teaming should be it's own reward, and there are those who see it as the whole point of the game, but it should NOT be force-fed to those that don't enjoy it.
To say that this move 'encourages' team play can be turned around to say that you're 'discouraging' solo play. That seems rather short-sighted.
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman,
You are assuming everyone plays as you do. I play differently and for a good reason - immersion and enjoyment.
I will almost always solo my missions - except AV's because I can get into the story and read all of the clues when I am solo.
I can SLOW DOWN when solo. In a group they click get a mission and everyone bundles off to fight. Solo I read my mission. If I get a clue I stop and read it. In a group the dynamic is FAST. If you stop to read a clue the group will be off fighting without you.
So bosses being harder makes it impossible for some of my guys to solo. I have a Grav/Rad controller. He is 26 and has no missions from anything over lvl 14.
Why? He can't solo an even con group of 3 that is normally in each mission. My strongest attack has the same damage as brawl. Nice?
In a group he is amazing. In fact I was able with an SK to lock down 3 lvl 45+ AV's in a row.
But I can't defeat a balloon.
So in this case all the content is lost on this character. I tried to do the respec post I3 and the final room bosses in the last wave destroyed me and shortly after my team. So if someone doesn't have a Golden character (I do have some) they are at an EXTREME disadvantage in play and in leveling at a reasonable rate.
[/ QUOTE ]
And NOT everyone plays like the soloers here. I for one LOVE the Boss changes; and while my main is a scrapper; I ALSO play a SS/INVUN Tanker; a Gravity/FF Controller; and a Energy/Energy Blaster; and a Rad/Rad Defender. I don't play 'Uber' builds either - hell, both the MA/SR Scrapper and SS/INVUN Tank are considered the 'worst of the worst' in their respective AT sets these days. I also don't/won't bother with caharcater build tips on the forums since I find a lot of the info handed out just plain wrong; and I could care lees what a min/maxwer's calculator says. My Scrapper, tanker and Controller were all concept characters transfered from the CHAMPIONS pen&paper RPG; and built to there respective concepts as closely as possible. The Defender I made was conceived 'new' and is a first for me in CoH - ie one that I didn't port over from CHAMPIONS.
The changes now Bosses something to be respected and prepared for and not just anothe high XP MOB to be taken out as you jump into the rest of the group without thinking.
My Controller, Blaster, and Defender have all been able to continue to solo Bosses in missions post 25 (the Controller and Defender were set to Tenacious as with those ATs, Hard-Boiled was still a snoozefest - and that Tanker is at Rugged. It just means that (especially for Controllers and Defenders) that you need to be lucky, use tactics (and be ready to back off when needed to recoup and come back); or have a good set of insps ready to burn during the fight.
I'm annoyed that everytime States attempts to up the difficulty just a bit; the legion of "What? I don't want to have to think when playing, I just want to see a group of spawns and push buttons in sequence until they drop. In essence, I WANT my 'perma-god mode'." Folks claiming that 'Heroes don't get defeated", etc, etc.
If you want something like that, please just go hack and play Counterstike or some other FPS where mindless fragging is the point of the game; and 'god mode' is a recognized option.
[ QUOTE ]
You're asking the developers to change the fundamental design of the game, a design they are only now reaching. I doubt you will succeed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? This game was wildly successful even without that "vision" being realized, and it's not as if rolling the changes back would negate any longstanding status quo.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
States, it has been the experience of a great many players (mentioned on other threads) that *multiple* unnamed bosses show up on missions that they entered alone.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll check this!
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll even tell you one. It's low level so just about all my alts have done it.
The damnable "unlucky pete" mission has a ton of bosses for no reason.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually the difficulty in the Hollows was increased, at least for the Frostfire and Atta missions as both are now elite bosses.
[/ QUOTE ]
The difficulty of those missions was NOT increased. Frostfire is the same as he always was (if not easier, considering two days ago when I beat him he only summoned one fire monkey), but now instead of the info saying he is a "Boss" it says he is an "Elite Boss". This is purely semantics for the player's benefit--he wasn't changed. Frostfire and Atta have always been in a class of their own, neither a Boss nor an AV. The new label was added merely to distinguish them from regular bosses.
Dwimble
[ QUOTE ]
I love the Hypno Toad. best tv show ever!
[/ QUOTE ]
"All glory to the Hypno Toad.... *single clap*" 
Dwimble
[ QUOTE ]
If you want something like that, please just go hack and play Counterstike or some other FPS where mindless fragging is the point of the game; and 'god mode' is a recognized option.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not up to you to decide what game options should be available to those who don't share your view.
I think the view of a lot of people is that this is just a game, and if we're paying to play it, we should have the right to play it at a desirable difficulty setting. If your life is so immersed in role-playing games and you feed off of the difficulty present in the game, terrific. More power to you. What I think others are asking for are options for casual gamers who want more instant gratification. Most people don't have the time nor patience to allow a game to play them.
If I'm taking the trouble to pay for your product, make it as accessible, enjoyable and non-committal as possible. Not everyone can or chooses to delve so deeply into the dynamics and strategies of all levels of gameplay, we just want to get in there and experience what the game was advertised to deliver; what it is to be a hero. A lot of players have real-life concerns and the last thing we want is to enter into a gamespace and have that world be frustratingly difficult to advance in and enjoy. And I also don't want to be told how to play a game, even by the developers. The inherent rules built into the game are enough. Adding on 'implied and suggested modes of gameplay' such as 'encouraging more team-based play is just unacceptable. If this is a concrete vision for the game and intended form of play, it should have stated such on the box and I'd have left it there on the shelf.
As a casual gamer, as there are legions more like myself, I assume, I'm approaching this as what it is, a game. Games of all types are meant to entertain, but when a monthly fee is attached to said game, then it's the responsibility of the developers to cater to the needs/wants of every range of player/customer who is supporting them.
Segmenting the game to be playable and enjoyable only by the most hardened power gamers is detrimental to the development of the game, both financially and enjoyment-wise.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm annoyed that everytime States attempts to up the difficulty just a bit; the legion of "What? I don't want to have to think when playing, I just want to see a group of spawns and push buttons in sequence until they drop. In essence, I WANT my 'perma-god mode'." Folks claiming that 'Heroes don't get defeated", etc, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I'm annoyed that even though they've given us an option to "up the difficulty just a bit" (ie. the difficulty slider), some people still insist on telling other people how they should enjoy the game.
And the "perma-god mode" crap is a total cop out. My controller wasn't in perma-god mode, unless being able to get 2-3 shotted is "godly." It's just that now, I get one shotted. Or instead of taking me 2 minutes to kill a boss, it takes me 10. Whooptee.
[ QUOTE ]
If you want something like that, please just go hack and play Counterstike or some other FPS where mindless fragging is the point of the game; and 'god mode' is a recognized option.
[/ QUOTE ]
Please don't tell others how to play, mmkay? Fun is a subjective idea, and your idea of fun is different from mine. I enjoy rewarding activities with a moderate challenge. You may enjoy more difficulty. Others may enjoy less.
[ QUOTE ]
I liked City of Heroes for one reason mainly. I could play solo. I am a Dad and when things come up with the kids and the wife I MUST leave the computer you just can't REASONABLY stress reasonably do that in a group. Its not fair to the group. You say MMP shines with a group that may be true. But yours was different it finally was a place solo players could fight solo and just chat with other people. You did not have to fight as a group. But as time goes by each change seems to move away from that. I just feel you are working against me now. As a dad I may need to look elsewhere for an online game.
Terry Bailey Sr.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do we need to start a "Dad's SG?"
Yech. Ya, the SG, with no one on at predictable times!
OK, States, good job talking about Boss Changes. I like it when the Devs or anyone communicates with players. We may not like what's said, but it's important to say it anyways (talking as one who is in customer service a lot).
Specific Kudos? -
1.) Love the difficulty slider. I play a rad/rad who was starting to wonder about the challenge level to the game and was holding entire SG conversations while running missions. Now I'm paying attention at Rugged. I significantly changed my build to allow for more single target damage and greater endurance.
2.) Love the idea of new content. I'm encouraged now to work on my alts and see it!
3.) Love the respec freebie. Didn't need to do that, yet you did. Thanks. =)
Issues?
1.) A lot of people complain of being "one shotted" by bosses. Mostly I experience "swiss cheese" My hero gets hit with a status effect, toggles drop, and I have to go back to the Icon tailor to fix the holes and body fluid stains out of my suit.
2.) "Social engineering" I'm a Dad. I play at odd times. I still have found a neat SG, but I don't get to see them that often. I play for an hour/day during the week and more during the weekend. The boss changes seem to hurt the casual player far more as there is a huge time investment. OK, this may mean I slip down to Hard-Boiled again. Could the interface between switching levels be a little better? I think so... can we get those fine Hero Corps reps on the contacts list? Heck, I wouldn't mind doing a mission or two for them even if I can get them on cellphone/speeddial. This would keep with game changes being "in game" and would help quality of life...
3.) "Solos and content" I think that, as others have said on this board, that solos are the ones that actually *read* the story behind this great game you have. I like your missions. I like the stories. I'd like even more depth! I'd like even more emersion, maybe an on going contact love affair/friend/relative. As it is, players often ditch contacts after they run dry of missions... Why not at 25+ let us "design" a contact (at least the clothes/costume). They would only appear at the start of the mission, so that server lag is kept to a minimum. But I digress...
Possible fixes?
1.) Let's take a look at how hard those bosses are hitting... If you fine devs like the DPS, maybe just increasing recharge rate and decreasing damage could be the ticket...
2.) Social engineering: OK, honestly I feel like I'm penalized for grouping because the XP actually goes down for me. Killing bosses is a delay in XP gathering, and XP/time is gained by the theory of less xp at increased & safer rates... the bosses aren't doing that. (yes, when given the opportunity: I really enjoy grouping... currently grouping 40% of the hours I spend in game).
3.) Solos and content: A solo only mission called "Loner" could work here as well as making a few missions to place the Hero Corps contact on the contact list would be great, so that crossing zones wouldn't be necessary. Hey, we're in the 21st century, can't I just *wire* him the influence?
Conclusion: Hey, Great Game States! Let's keep remembering there are casual players too! I group when I *can*. Let me (and others) enjoy the game when we can't...
[ QUOTE ]
Why not? This game was wildly successful even without that "vision" being realized, and it's not as if rolling the changes back would negate any longstanding status quo.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, let's see what Statesman has said on the topic:
[ QUOTE ]
3 minions = 1 hero is the desired goal. That's approximately what it is at levels 1 to 22 or so. Past that, heroes become disproportionately
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah - this is somewhat unrelated. The game is too easy at higher levels. Larger groups need to hunt higher level spawns in order to find challenge, and therefore fun.
The missions at levels 30+ contain foes -1,0,+1 to the level of the mission holder (or at least the level he was when he received the mission). Those foes are trivially easy for players at those levels. Thus, they go to street sweeping - because the fun is at fighting foes +5 levels - and consequently they receive A LOT of experience points.
The goal (eventually) is to make the +1,0,-1 level spread as fun at 30th level as it was at 10th level.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If whites/yellow become as hard as reds/purples, then of course we'll increase the XP! Risk=Reward.
While hunting hoards of reds/purples now is fun on the streets, missions end up being that much more boring. Even worse, large groups have nowhere to go to find enough mobs to make the fight interesting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Emphasis below is mine:
[ QUOTE ]
I want to make the difficulty of the later levels resemble early gameplay. At first, some players will decry "but I can't do what I used to! Ack! I can't solo two +4 bosses anymore?" True - but they'll have fun battling 3 white minions - which is something you can say at level 15, but not at level 35. Long term, the entire game will sparkle once this sort of balance is restored - because so much of the game design hangs upon it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like it's an important, maybe even crucial part of their design of the game to me.
[ QUOTE ]
I think the genre (and the great game) attracts many of us who want some online gaming experiences, but need it to be flexible enough that we can solo at will (instead of standing around trying to form a team for 10 minutes).
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, the game attracted me, and I wasn't looking for any sort of online gaming experience. I just wanted a good superhero RPG, and CoH works for me. Frankly, I'm here despite the online presence, not because of it.
(Yeah, I've tried Freedom Force, but I really didn't care for it.)
I figure, there's already plenty of stuff built in to encourage teaming. Task forces and trials are only available to teams. Hazard zones are designed to be handled by teams. That's a lot of stuff that's unavailable or unappealing to casual solos like me.
Missions and street sweeping are the only things to solo in the game. And I find street sweeping to be extremely boring, with or without a group. Which leaves me with missions (which are my favorite part of the game anyway). But they're becoming increasingly group-oriented, too. When I hit level 29, only two missions being offered to me were anything other than hazard zone hunts. One of those was hunting Sky Raiders, who only occur naturally in hazard zones. The other was a "simultaneous glowies" mission, which required two teammates. So, I could either deal with the frustrations of teaming (and I usually find it more frustrating than fun), or bore myself by street sweeping.
The game is already leaning heavily toward grouping. I don't expect to be able to solo everything, but it's getting to the point where fun soloing opportunities are rapidly disappearing.
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like it's an important, maybe even crucial part of their design of the game to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Great. That goes to whether the changes are crucial to their "vision" though, not crucial to the success of the game. They could end up with an incredibly successful and fun game that's miles away from their original vision. I hope they wouldn't tamper with that success in order to achieve some vision that may or may not work or be fun.
My point was that the game thrived without the changes. The changes are thus obviously not crucial to gameplay.
Question for you:
If you were a game designer, and you had two choices to make:
1) One choice provided equal fun for the casual player (through the default setting) and for the hardcore player (through the difficulty slider. The latter is true to your "vision" of the game, but the default setting is not.
2) One choice provided fun for the hardcore player, with a game structure that's true to your original vision. It provides less fun (and at times frustration) to the casual gamer.
Which would you choose? I suspect some would choose the latter. I hope I don't ever play any games run by them. I hope the Devs would pick the former choice.
[ QUOTE ]
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to make the difficulty of the later levels resemble early gameplay. At first, some players will decry "but I can't do what I used to! Ack! I can't solo two +4 bosses anymore?" True - but they'll have fun battling 3 white minions - which is something you can say at level 15, but not at level 35. Long term, the entire game will sparkle once this sort of balance is restored - because so much of the game design hangs upon it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like it's an important, maybe even crucial part of their design of the game to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
And that's the part that really baffles me. You fight your way through 22 levels to finally get to that glorious SO-stage. You slot your powers up well, start getting the really cool powers, finally having a sense of being 'super' and all you end up doing is still fighting 3 white minions at the same difficulty as when you were level 1. That's not game-design. That's a cop-out.
Level 1 - 3 white minions=one hero.
Level 50 - 3 white minions=one hero.
Where's the progress? Where's the feeling of accomplishment?
To heck with the design. Make everyone happy by rolling back boss-damage and have people who like more of a challenge put their slider on 'you have got to be f-ing kidding me'.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm annoyed that everytime States attempts to up the difficulty just a bit; the legion of "What? I don't want to have to think when playing, I just want to see a group of spawns and push buttons in sequence until they drop. In essence, I WANT my 'perma-god mode'." Folks claiming that 'Heroes don't get defeated", etc, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lots of people got defeated often by the old bosses. Making the game totally unsoloable without reading the forums for build hints is not good at all.
[ QUOTE ]
Great. That goes to whether the changes are crucial to their "vision" though, not crucial to the success of the game. They could end up with an incredibly successful and fun game that's miles away from their original vision.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I don't feel they should. Besides what is a "successful" game anyway? Is it successful if you design and build a game that you are dissapointed in?
[ QUOTE ]
I hope they wouldn't tamper with that success in order to achieve some vision that may or may not work or be fun.
[/ QUOTE ]
Like any artist I'd want them to be happy with their creation.
[ QUOTE ]
My point was that the game thrived without the changes. The changes are thus obviously not crucial to gameplay.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you dispute that the player base is dwindling? This is hardly surprising yet, at the same time, now is the time to look at who are going to be the long term loyal segments of the player base and start working to keep them loyal.
[ QUOTE ]
Question for you:
If you were a game designer,
[/ QUOTE ]
I am.
[ QUOTE ]
and you had two choices to make:
1) One choice provided equal fun for the casual player (through the default setting) and for the hardcore player (through the difficulty slider. The latter is true to your "vision" of the game, but the default setting is not.
[/ QUOTE ]
But the default setting is BROKEN. It is not working as intended. This is causing more and more problems for the game.
[ QUOTE ]
2) One choice provided fun for the hardcore player, with a game structure that's true to your original vision. It provides less fun (and at times frustration) to the casual gamer.
Which would you choose? I suspect some would choose the latter. I hope I don't ever play any games run by them. I hope the Devs would pick the former choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
First off, you're trying to control the terms here. Hardcore and Casual players are arbitrary distinctions you haven't even bothered to define. Hence, your entire binary choice is invalid.
I would implement the game I designed. If it was not commericlaly viable I would shut it down and move on.
[ QUOTE ]
To heck with the design. Make everyone happy by rolling back boss-damage and have people who like more of a challenge put their slider on 'you have got to be f-ing kidding me'.
[/ QUOTE ]
The 40% boss boost does seem to be preventing a lot of people who would like to use the mission slider from using it, since that makes missions quite insane for non-optimal builds. Crunchier minions and Lts would be nice, bosses that are effectively +5s, not so much.
@Mindshadow
[ QUOTE ]
And that's the part that really baffles me. You fight your way through 22 levels to finally get to that glorious SO-stage. You slot your powers up well, start getting the really cool powers, finally having a sense of being 'super' and all you end up doing is still fighting 3 white minions at the same difficulty as when you were level 1. That's not game-design. That's a cop-out.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cons and levels are arbitrary. They're only there to let you knwo the level of challenge a foe presents. a level 50 minion is going to be more challenging than a level 2 minion. But the colour coding of their challenge level is supposed to remain constant. That's the point. How is it a cop-out? How is it different from Challenge Rating in d20 RPGs?
[ QUOTE ]
Level 1 - 3 white minions=one hero.
Level 50 - 3 white minions=one hero.
Where's the progress? Where's the feeling of accomplishment?
[/ QUOTE ]
Defeating evil villians? Making the city safer? Badges? Accolades?
[ QUOTE ]
To heck with the design. Make everyone happy by rolling back boss-damage and have people who like more of a challenge put their slider on 'you have got to be f-ing kidding me'.
[/ QUOTE ]
Never in all my years of game play have I seen a game improved by abandoning the design.
[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To heck with the design. Make everyone happy by rolling back boss-damage and have people who like more of a challenge put their slider on 'you have got to be f-ing kidding me'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never in all my years of game play have I seen a game improved by abandoning the design.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am only talking about rolling back the boss-damage here. I am not suggesting they flush their entire game down the drain. The point is and remains that people who want their game harder now have the tool to do so. Making the bosses harder across the board for the 25+ crowd makes no sense to me.
Can you, as a game-designer, explain in layman's terms exactly WHY the devs of this game felt it was necessary to up the boss-damage? Because, quite frankly, I cannot make heads or tails of Statesman's explanation.
[ QUOTE ]
Cons and levels are arbitrary. They're only there to let you knwo the level of challenge a foe presents. a level 50 minion is going to be more challenging than a level 2 minion. But the colour coding of their challenge level is supposed to remain constant. That's the point. How is it a cop-out? How is it different from Challenge Rating in d20 RPGs?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, quite a bit. Most minions really aren't that *different* from the 20's level versions. Maybe they have a few different powers.
In d20, a challenge rating 20 critter can be quite a bit different in *how* it fights.
Why don't we see an enemy group with Super speed? Super Jump? Or a *really* fast flight speed?
Or ones that do some really odd things? Like 1 minion that turns into three -1 minions (not underlings, actual minions.)
Or if you don't take out the "radio" man quickly, you get reinforcements that *run* over to you from the far side of the room?
Still here, even after all this time!
I should think that there's plenty of evidence on this thread that people don't want "god-mode" or "mindless fragging". You DID read the rest of the thread, right?
I also think the case has been sufficiently, persuasively, and eloquently argued. The ball is now in Statesman's court. I hope that he chooses to respond, so that we might all know where we stand.
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To heck with the design. Make everyone happy by rolling back boss-damage and have people who like more of a challenge put their slider on 'you have got to be f-ing kidding me'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never in all my years of game play have I seen a game improved by abandoning the design.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am only talking about rolling back the boss-damage here. I am not suggesting they flush their entire game down the drain. The point is and remains that people who want their game harder now have the tool to do so. Making the bosses harder across the board for the 25+ crowd makes no sense to me.
Can you, as a game-designer, explain in layman's terms exactly WHY the devs of this game felt it was necessary to up the boss-damage? Because, quite frankly, I cannot make heads or tails of Statesman's explanation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bosses were "too easy" to defeat" (which is really odd, for most people, they were too "grindy" to *bother* to defeat regularly.) There are still many "orphan" bosses in Perez Park from people AOE minion farming.
But this new change went over the top, IMO.
If the idea was to make them +1, it failed by quite a big degree. Bosses *feel* like they are at least +3 on the difficulty chart.
So now people who want more challenging (and rewarding) fights with minions (up to +2) get saddled with *effectively* +5 or +4 bosses in their midst.
Now be the -2 or -3 low man on a team.
Yeah, that's the sound of debt being rung up on the "fast service" register right there.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
So you dispute that the player base is dwindling? This is hardly surprising yet, at the same time, now is the time to look at who are going to be the long term loyal segments of the player base and start working to keep them loyal.
[/ QUOTE ]
IMO, that would be the casual, slow-leveling, story-oriented players who enjoy the game for its story and its variety, and who will keep logging in for months to do arcs and try out alts. NOT the people who race to 50, get bored, and wander off to try the next Kewl New MMOG.
Just my opinion, of course.
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you dispute that the player base is dwindling? This is hardly surprising yet, at the same time, now is the time to look at who are going to be the long term loyal segments of the player base and start working to keep them loyal.
[/ QUOTE ]
IMO, that would be the casual, slow-leveling, story-oriented players who enjoy the game for its story and its variety, and who will keep logging in for months to do arcs and try out alts. NOT the people who race to 50, get bored, and wander off to try the next Kewl New MMOG.
Just my opinion, of course.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm one of those casual, slow-leveling, story-oriented players, and I think the boss changes were a big mistake.
Infinity:
Ellen, 50 MA/Inv Scr
February Night, 14 Ice/Ice Blstr
Guardian:
SilverSwordmaid, 29 Kat/Rgn Scr
Vicious Killer, 33 Emp/Enrgy Def
Electromagness, 40 Rad/Rad Def
Sense of Humor, 50 Fire/En Tank
Virtue:
Kickfest, 50 MA/SR Scr
Freedom:
Glorious Ending, 29 EM/DA Bru
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great. That goes to whether the changes are crucial to their "vision" though, not crucial to the success of the game. They could end up with an incredibly successful and fun game that's miles away from their original vision.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I don't feel they should. Besides what is a "successful" game anyway? Is it successful if you design and build a game that you are dissapointed in?
[/ QUOTE ]
Two cheers for unbending rigidity, then.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope they wouldn't tamper with that success in order to achieve some vision that may or may not work or be fun.
[/ QUOTE ]
Like any artist I'd want them to be happy with their creation.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really think of them as artists (or, at least, I only secondarily think of them as artists). I primarily think of them as product manufacturers or engineers. They aren't putting out a product just so people can appreciate its aesthetic appeal and well balanced theory... they're putting out a product that people are supposed to enjoy.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was that the game thrived without the changes. The changes are thus obviously not crucial to gameplay.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you dispute that the player base is dwindling? This is hardly surprising yet, at the same time, now is the time to look at who are going to be the long term loyal segments of the player base and start working to keep them loyal.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dwindling? I dunno. Smaller? Yes, but that's to be expected for all sorts of reasons, including competition. Let's assume it IS dwindling though; the game had a high soloability at launch. I haven't seen many changes that increased that soloability, but I've seen several that have hurt it. Why the reluctance to assign the "dwindling" to the shift towards solo-unfriendly gameplay?
And guess what? A lot of these "loyal fans" you're concerned about are on the message boards saying they don't like the changes.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question for you:
If you were a game designer,
[/ QUOTE ]
I am.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then I hope I don't purchase any games by you.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and you had two choices to make:
1) One choice provided equal fun for the casual player (through the default setting) and for the hardcore player (through the difficulty slider. The latter is true to your "vision" of the game, but the default setting is not.
[/ QUOTE ]
But the default setting is BROKEN. It is not working as intended. This is causing more and more problems for the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
"Not working as intended" does not mean "broken." The Devs might have unintentionally stumbled upon a fun game design. If a feature is fun and the playerbase enjoys it, then I'd say it isn't broken. Especially if the fix (the return to "as intended")makes the playerbase enjoy the game less.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) One choice provided fun for the hardcore player, with a game structure that's true to your original vision. It provides less fun (and at times frustration) to the casual gamer.
Which would you choose? I suspect some would choose the latter. I hope I don't ever play any games run by them. I hope the Devs would pick the former choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
First off, you're trying to control the terms here. Hardcore and Casual players are arbitrary distinctions you haven't even bothered to define. Hence, your entire binary choice is invalid.
[/ QUOTE ]
Make up whatever definition you like, then answer the question. Here, I'll make up one for you:
Hardcore: People who think the game is too easy. People who play on average 10+ hours a week. People who actually spend 1 hr+ a week on the forums.
Casual: People who think the game is just right or a little difficult. People who play on average -10 hours a week. People who don't read the forum, or read it only occasionally.
[ QUOTE ]
I would implement the game I designed. If it was not commericlaly viable I would shut it down and move on.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's extremely foolish. You're running a company. You have investors and employees. You have hundreds of thousands of customers who are playing and enjoying themselves, and they've spent at a minimum of $50 each (usually much more) to play your game. They're having fun as the game is but not as you want it to be, so you'd shut it down. The customer be damned... you want a designer-oriented game.
If you're a game designer, as you say, please let us know which games you work on. I would like to avoid them.
I have always thought that once you hit 3 of ANY type of enhancer that any further ones should have a reduced effect.
It would encourage people to fit other enhancers to damage abilities.
A typical slotting of 3 Dam, 2 Rchg and 1 EndRdx may also help a bit with the ridiculous situation we have with most ATs feeling they HAVE to take Stamina AND Hasten.
Experience gained from encounters would probably have to be increased a little to compensate for the fact that fights would probably be taking a little longer than usual.
That's how I'd start looking at it....however I'm not a game designer...so I won't be offended if someone points out any obvious problems and calls me a numpty