Not once, not twice, but three times...
By
008Zulu,
Posted on: 2006-01-10 16:26 in Developers' Corner
Awesome!
This is a great idea... mission difficulty will now scale more, without making any changes to the players.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
Its a bad change that can't do anything but cheapen the value and the sense of accomplishment that is normally associated with those badges, and its all to shut up soloers whining because of nerfs that they can't solo AVs anymore and they just refuse to bite the bullet and team.
[/ QUOTE ]
All this really does is illustrate that you really don't understand the complaints.
I would say it's more due to people who play blasters getting frustrated with having their mission slots clogged up with AVs they can't get past, and the like. That is, this change is more for people who never could or would solo AVs than for people who did, and are annoyed that they can't anymore.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
I just want to add that this is one of the best changes ever incorporated into the game.
It lets me play the game how I want to play it instead of being dictated to that I "must" team.
Thanks again!
[ QUOTE ]
And under the current system I have to spend half an hour to get a team wipe because I found an idiot blaster who can't control aggro, or take a week to finish an arc so I can get my SG together.
Then if I want to do Maria Jenkins, I have to do this for every single mission.
Personally, I prefer to have your "problem" Lothart.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I'm proposing a way neither of us will have this problem. By marking, clearly and explicity, every mission that can spawn an AV so that everyone has a clear choice whether they get to face an AV or not.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And under the current system I have to spend half an hour to get a team wipe because I found an idiot blaster who can't control aggro, or take a week to finish an arc so I can get my SG together.
Then if I want to do Maria Jenkins, I have to do this for every single mission.
Personally, I prefer to have your "problem" Lothart.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I'm proposing a way neither of us will have this problem. By marking, clearly and explicity, every mission that can spawn an AV so that everyone has a clear choice whether they get to face an AV or not.
[/ QUOTE ]
and you aparenty dont realize a AV is in EVER mission in the post 40 COH game and post 25 COV game
AE # 67087: Journey through the Looking Glass - Save the World
LLX VirtueVerse! - Check out my crazy Toons
This is the size of group that we have balanced AVs for, 6.
-Positron 06/07/06 07:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is one of those perceived problems (like all the people who swear they were always at the debt cap) that doesn't actually need "fixed." If anything, you're just removing content (which is a problem) to appease a small group of antisocial people who can't find a team.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny. Since you seem to be the one in the "small group of people" who doesn't appreciate the change.
Your opinion is your opinion, of course, and you are welcome to it, but here is the problem with your logic:
If the majority of the people, as you seem to believe, are like you, and prefer to team, and make friends, and tackle AV's as a group, then this will not change that. Those people will still be online, and you will still be able to team with them. Meanwhile, those people who are, as you say, "antisocial", or who like the game to be "too easy", will be able to enjoy the game their way. No harm done.
On the other hand, if you're wrong, and there are LOTS of people (as the responses in this thread seem to indicate) who find the need to team up every third mission in the late game to clear their mission queues to be irritating and/or immersion breaking (as with me, I like being able to take on the antagonist solo, to the point that I have been known to level twice and drop my difficulty from highest to lowest just so I can solo the AV), then YOU are in the minority, and keeping the game the way YOU like it would be a disservice to the majority of the customers. Furthermore, since you and your friends team up constantly ANYWAY, you'll still be fighting the villain as an AV/Hero no matter whether this change goes live or not, so again, no harm done.
Therefore, the only reason I can see for insisting that it stay the same is a desire on your part to force others, who don't feel as you do, to play the way YOU want to.
Not a good reason, in my opinion. I think the devs have made a good move here.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any time you use "most" in a situation with exploit, someone will turn it to "always abused".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But part of what makes an exploit an exploit is repeatability. If we're talking mission complete XP here, how is that exploitable? Once you've finished the mission, you can't go back and do it again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it is repeatible. You set up the mission, *quit* from the team and select a different mission. The team is doing your mission, but you are no longer connected to it for completion purposes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but this just strikes me as penny-wise and pound foolish.
A) You lose the mission bonus, easily worth as much as the glowies, often worth 5x as much.
B) You miss out on the xp AND salvage AND inspirations AND enhancement drops AND infamy/influence OR prestige gained from fighting the mobs, resulting in a levelled character without any infamy to spend on enhancements, resulting in a gimped character. Seems kinda crazy as a "powerlevelling" technique.
C) It's boring, and the xp gained/traveltime to each glowie in mission is far less than if you simply fought the first spawn, left the mission, reset it, and did it again.
All in all, seems like a pretty silly way to PL, and a REALLY silly reason for a nerf.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of curiosity, why is the original intent relevant?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a game designer myself I want the implementation of a game to match it's design.
[/ QUOTE ]
And script-writers/authors would like it if movies stayed true to their original vision as they wrote it, but it very seldom works out that way. Reason? Because test audiences don't like it. So they change it.
Example? In Blade, the original "La Magra" was meant to be an eight-story tall "blood monster", completely inhuman. Test audiences checked out the moment they could no longer relate to it as the villain they were invested in. Result? Script changed, ending re-filmed, vision corrupted, movie successful.
Sorry, but that's just how it works. And I, too, am a game designer and an author, albeit of absolutely no repute.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to Scion.....My tanker is 100% Female, so you can keep those "balls" and give them to someone else who wants 'em.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you're saying your female tanker doesn't LIKE balls, huh? Sounds like you're playing an "alternative" type character. 
However, if it makes you happy...
How bout we sew the breasts back on the inv/tankers now?
[/ QUOTE ]
OH, she LIKES balls, just not on her!! And she got her breasts back when they introduced the body sliders!!
BUT, I do know exactly what you are saying.......and she would NOT turn down any buff divined down by the dev's.
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains they define what is broken, not the playerbase.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again they define improve. Not us.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but this overly simplistic generalization simply isn't true. There are variations of "broken", and different kinds of "improve"ments.
If the customers are dissatisfied, and the reasons make sense, then the marketing department, as well as the wise game designer, will realize that the game is, indeed, broken, even if it is "working as designed" (software engineers in the crowd will catch that joke).
Similarly, if the majority of the players believe a certain change would "improve" the game, and hence increase the likelihood of their continuing subscription, the marketing department (and the wise developer) will view it as an improvement, as well, unless it critically alters an aspect of the game of which the playerbase is currently unaware.
Example: A GM in a PnP game alters the levelling/xp gain process to make what he sees as an "improvement". In this matter, he has become a "game designer". But if his players HATE it, or find it to be "broken", he would be wise to "fix" it, or eliminate it entirely. Otherwise, his opinion will rule over an empty table.
Sorry, but that's the way it works.
[ QUOTE ]
That's not the same to me. If I want to run a marathon I'm not going to run a half-marathon and claim I've run a marathon.
[/ QUOTE ]
And if I want to run a 5k, I'm not going to be very happy if a bunch of race coordinators tie me to the back of a truck and force me to run an extra 26 miles. Choice, man. It's about choice. You still have yours. Let us have ours.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see NOTHING in this post stating they are gonna go with suppression of stealth idea. Where was that posted?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has the stealth suppression gone through? Or is everybody just speculating?
[/ QUOTE ]
Here when he said:
[ QUOTE ]
We're going to be taking out this "stealth nerf" or "nerf to stealth" or whatever...
The original intent was to prevent riskless XP gain...but I agree that the implementation caused problems as noted here on the forums.
I REALLY like the Suppression idea brought up, but that'll take some time to implement. So we're just going to take it out until we can do it right.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhhhhh,
There it is, in another thread.....I KNEW I didn't see it in this thread. Much thanx and
/e deep bow
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains they define what is broken, not the playerbase.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again they define improve. Not us.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but this overly simplistic generalization simply isn't true. There are variations of "broken", and different kinds of "improve"ments.
If the customers are dissatisfied, and the reasons make sense, then the marketing department, as well as the wise game designer, will realize that the game is, indeed, broken, even if it is "working as designed" (software engineers in the crowd will catch that joke).
Similarly, if the majority of the players believe a certain change would "improve" the game, and hence increase the likelihood of their continuing subscription, the marketing department (and the wise developer) will view it as an improvement, as well, unless it critically alters an aspect of the game of which the playerbase is currently unaware.
Example: A GM in a PnP game alters the levelling/xp gain process to make what he sees as an "improvement". In this matter, he has become a "game designer". But if his players HATE it, or find it to be "broken", he would be wise to "fix" it, or eliminate it entirely. Otherwise, his opinion will rule over an empty table.
Sorry, but that's the way it works.
[/ QUOTE ]
depends on whatthe defintion of wise is
AE # 67087: Journey through the Looking Glass - Save the World
LLX VirtueVerse! - Check out my crazy Toons
This is the size of group that we have balanced AVs for, 6.
-Positron 06/07/06 07:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
depends on whatthe defintion of wise is
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you, Mr. President.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
depends on whatthe defintion of wise is
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you, Mr. President.
[/ QUOTE ]
I did not have nerf relations with that developer Jack Emerat
AE # 67087: Journey through the Looking Glass - Save the World
LLX VirtueVerse! - Check out my crazy Toons
This is the size of group that we have balanced AVs for, 6.
-Positron 06/07/06 07:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
depends on whatthe defintion of wise is
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Mr. President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not have nerf relations with that developer Jack Emerat
[/ QUOTE ]
<intercom crackles> "Ummm...Mr. President? There are some men here from the Forum cartel who have some questions about an oddly soiled spare costume found in Statesman's closet...shall I buzz them in?"
[ QUOTE ]
Good job! I, for one, never lost any faith in your abilities.
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel the same way. I've always had a good feel about these developers.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how it is "easy" to memorize every mission in the game in advance in case it might spawn an AV so I know I have to form a large team OR raise my difficulty to a level I can't deal with just to SEE an AV.
[/ QUOTE ]
A valid argument as to why they should mark these somehow... I know the devs like having them as a surprise, but now there's no reason to leave it that way. EBs are fairly common (more common than AVs, anyway) - so they could feasibly tag the mission on the contact's screen with something like, "There's a chance that you'll be running into one of Paragon's 'Most Wanted' villians, Envoy of Shadows/Maestro/ DecafCuppaJo ."
[/ QUOTE ]
THE MOST HORRIBLE OF ALL ARCH VILLIANS COMBINED!!!!!!
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This means no suppression either, right? That would incur most of the same problems the original nerf brought, so I hope we're sticking with stealth as-is.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you read Statesman's comment on it, yes supression of stealth will be coming in a future patch. They will be pulling the current method so they can code supression in.
Its only being pulled because otherwise idiots would use group and castable invisibility abilities to grief and harass players.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hate to spoil the fun but you do realise those who predicted abait and switch were...right
The devs AI is as predictable as a vazalok cadaver without a mortie
[/ QUOTE ]
It couldn't be that maybe they're actually listening to the players?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This means no suppression either, right? That would incur most of the same problems the original nerf brought, so I hope we're sticking with stealth as-is.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you read Statesman's comment on it, yes supression of stealth will be coming in a future patch. They will be pulling the current method so they can code supression in.
Its only being pulled because otherwise idiots would use group and castable invisibility abilities to grief and harass players.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hate to spoil the fun but you do realise those who predicted abait and switch were...right
The devs AI is as predictable as a vazalok cadaver without a mortie
[/ QUOTE ]
So...
Your not happy with the Dev's because they never listen to the playerbase, however, anything thats done that appears to be listening to the playerbase is all really part of some bait and switch?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's more like they do some change that is extreme, and then like usual some players suggest something less extreme even though the original change in the first place was unneeded and the alternative is only reasonable in comparison to the original change, rather than being reasonable in itself. That's what is now happening with stealth powers. Changing them in the first place was asinine, and suppression still retains most of the problems and is nearly as unreasonable. Most clickies don't even give XP, and risk v. reward is making fun and time v. reward take a back seat even though they have a lot more to do with making the game enjoyable. I remember ED was also mentioned as "player suggestion" despite it being a suggestion in place of the I5 nerfs. We got I5 nerfs + ED and the blame was placed on "see! we listen to our customers!" in order to make it look like we're really being listened to.
What would probably be a more effective tactic in the future when changes like this come is to not offer an alternative for the devs. All we end up doing is giving them some sort of excuse to implement something largely similar when we wanted neither in the first place. Otherwise, we end up just pressuring them into implementing something we didn't even want in the first place, but merely would have wanted rather than the original change. It's not a productive cycle to be in, and the forums seem to fall into it every single time in an incredibly mechanistic manner.
People say Jack and co. don't know PR, but they've managed to rather successfully placate their customers _repeatedly_ even after the most egregious of changes. The best PR is the PR that people don't even recognise.
[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be the type to have very little faith in people. Almost paranoid and very cynical. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with your viewpoints and state that I believe that the developers are not being deceptive in the slightest. I think that they're doing the best that they can and you are simply applying your views to situations that can easily be mistaken as such. Any number of people can perform the same series of actions but have different motivations for doing so.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This means no suppression either, right? That would incur most of the same problems the original nerf brought, so I hope we're sticking with stealth as-is.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you read Statesman's comment on it, yes supression of stealth will be coming in a future patch. They will be pulling the current method so they can code supression in.
Its only being pulled because otherwise idiots would use group and castable invisibility abilities to grief and harass players.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hate to spoil the fun but you do realise those who predicted abait and switch were...right
The devs AI is as predictable as a vazalok cadaver without a mortie
[/ QUOTE ]
So...
Your not happy with the Dev's because they never listen to the playerbase, however, anything thats done that appears to be listening to the playerbase is all really part of some bait and switch?
Way to go, you've got it set up so that no matter what the Dev's do, its the wrong decision.
[/ QUOTE ]
go read the "marked glowes thread" wthat stated the steath outcry
one of the most common respodendes was "Watch the devs post how their going to lesten it to suppression and give us the old bait and switch 'see we do listen toyou its just going to be suppression now"
and what has happened now
"we heard your crises and are making it suppression instead'
predicted to the letter
[/ QUOTE ]
I could make a thousand predictions and if just one of them appears to come true people could say I made an accurate prediction. Then again maybe I just got lucky. Predictions as a whole are easy to twist to suits ones purposes.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This means no suppression either, right? That would incur most of the same problems the original nerf brought, so I hope we're sticking with stealth as-is.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you read Statesman's comment on it, yes supression of stealth will be coming in a future patch. They will be pulling the current method so they can code supression in.
Its only being pulled because otherwise idiots would use group and castable invisibility abilities to grief and harass players.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh okay, so it's just the usual bait-and-switch that comes like clockwork. Suppression still brings in a huge host of QOL problems and is as bafflingly asinine as the previous idea. They may as well just change the power name to "kinda sneaky...sometimes".
Well, so much for boosting my expectations.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not one who believes that using stealth to click glowies was an exploit - you paid for it by getting less xp, for example.
However, I want to know - what kind of QoL problems does this change bring?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, a few of them are: 1. It can greatly increase the length of time some missions will take. You already pay a penalty in XP not killing the baddies, and it seems pretty reasonable that a "stealthy" character could get the job done without having to tear through the opposition guns blazing. 2. It also creates issues when the clicky target is near a foe that the player is no match for and whose style is to outwit the foe by sneaking by. So basically the change punishes squishy soloers who rely upon this ability. 3. It also is damaging just in general to those whose playstyle or character's persona is to avoid up-front conflict in such a manner.
I just think it's a silly, petty change that has no reasonable basis designwise. It's amazing to me how obsessive some people are about someone gaining XP in some other way. I don't think risk v. reward is a sound premise for game design, so I can't really identify with changes made on account of it.
Anyhow, I'm not going to get involved in a big discussion about this except in PM. It will dominate the thread in an unnecessary manner.
[/ QUOTE ]
From what I understand the intention is that you fight (at least some of) the enemies in these missions. As for stealth based missions that are created for the purpose of stealthing, I think these will comming soon. Players have been asking for different kinds of missions. I just think that the developers had in mind that these others missions as they stand are not stealth missions and that people have been avoiding all the risks for their reward, even if it is somewhat lessened by the fact that there are less mobs killed. In fact I often see many teams just click out as soon as the mission objectives are completed and don't bother to clear the map. I personally like to clear everything out regarless of what kind of mission it is.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, in CoH, a blaster can punch the tanker's toggles off. In WoW, a mage cannot punch a warrior's armor off.
Advantage = WoW.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny I read that exact same sentence and concluded the opposite.
[/ QUOTE ]
Toggle-dropping is a terrible kludge. I'm sorry if you like it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, they're working on that too.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give me the doooooom posts anyday. These bootlicking marathons just make me ill.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I get called a fanboi for this, I'll probably have a heart attack from laughter, as several on this thread will understand.
[/ QUOTE ]
I really know the feeling. If I'm not being called a fanboi I'm being called a troll. Just like the developers it seems no matter what I do I'm damned either way.
Note - Yes (to those in the know) I have done many a stupid thing and have been called on it, but not everything I've said was wrong.
I'm just happy to see everyone else so happy.
[ QUOTE ]
States, might this change mean that some of the lower-level Elite Bosses, like Frostfire or Heracles, could become Archvillains for big-enough teams? That might be fun; there are relatively few AVs in the lower end of CoH as it is now, especially compared to CoV.
[/ QUOTE ]
That might be interesting, and it'd certainly be something to team up for in those low levels.