Not once, not twice, but three times...
By
008Zulu,
Posted on: 2006-01-10 16:26 in Developers' Corner
Just to calrify: The Archvillain thing is ONLY for Mission AV's, Archvillains in Task Forces/Strike Forces and World Spawns will not be changed.
Post by positron
You can tell how he spells clarify he doesn't play a sonic defender, x/sonic controller or x/sonic corrupter.
[ QUOTE ]
No XP for glowies. Exploit closed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hate to give an argument to support Stealth supression, but quite a few people have already pointed it out, so I don't feel I'm giving anything away.
In any mission where you can "stealth the blinkies" to just get to the end, you can raise the difficulty to get a higher end of mission bonus, with no appreciable greater risk...
Now, I still think that's a really gimp "exploit" since you'll be giving up all the xp you could get from fighting, but it's still a form of exploit, so I can understand them wanting to "fix" it.
While they're figuring out how to implement it though ('cause we know you guys are 
) How about considering allowing the difficulty slider also determine if that supression kicks in or not? It's an elegeant soloution to the AV thing, and I think that can apply here too...
What if it wasn't supressed on Heroic or Tenacious, but on Rugged and up (when you actually get a bigger mission completion bonus) supression kicks in. Furthermore, the blinkie itself gives no reward at all (yes, I know that's the way it works now- but this would apply to drops and influence too, that I think some still give) only the basic mission completion bonus would apply (ending the mission, and preventing the "exploit of being able to repeat it). That will allow squishies to ghost the missions they can, while giving the equivelant "reward" for their risk.
Those missions set at Rugged and above will supress Stealth when you click on blinkies, and I would suggest that there be things given for them based on the difficulty you have set (xp influecnce, enh drops, whatever) since there is more risk involved, and to encourage wanting to work with the supression (more carrot, less stick).
This would, of course, not apply to "outside" missions for things like the holiday presents (where supression would apply- it's outside after all- or maybe just kick in during the day, but that would be some insane coding I imagine!).
The idea here is to allow for the possibility for "ghosting" missions for squishy players, and still allow reducing time in TF/SF's for those who wish to when possible, even if it is for little reward (completing the mission faster).
Thoughts?
"I play characters. I have to have a very strong visual appearance, backstory, name, etc. to get involved with a character, otherwise I simply won't play it very long. I'm not an RPer by any stretch of the imagination, but character concept is very important for me."- Back Alley Brawler
I couldn't agree more.
[ QUOTE ]
Hence, there is no objective definition of an improvement unless it is set by an arbitrary group designated to set it for a particular sphere of their influence. In this case, that group is Cryptic's development team led by Statesman/Jack.
[/ QUOTE ]
And, like it or not, they must serve their financial masters as well as their artistic vision. In fact, if they wish to continue to follow their vision, they had better make sure someone's footing the bill. Art does not exist in a vacuum, particularly not art that depends on millions of invested dollars.
[ QUOTE ]
So? A well designed game is not inherently a commercially successful game. The market does not define artisitic success, merely financial success.
Now, you mention that the reasons must "make sense". But to whom? The marketing department? Who are they to judge? The only people qualified to determine if a change "makes sense" are the developers.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's like saying a well-made movie isn't necessarily a financially successful movie. The very term "well-made" is dependent upon who is using it, and I guarantee you that the major studios define a "well-made" movie in financial terms, not artistic ones. Money talks, artistic vision walks, my friend.
As to the developers being the only ones who can decide if a change "makes sense", that's just naive. Ever heard the phrase "that just makes good business sense"? The developers DON'T have the last word on that, and when the time comes to answer to investors, or ask for more money for new games, expansions, etc, you better believe that the what the money men think makes sense matters a LOT more than what the developers think. A marriage of the two is what makes for a stellar game. Bad business and good art make for starving artists. Good business and bad art make for "Dude, where's my car".
[ QUOTE ]
If the game design is being defined by the marketing department please let me know so I can be sure to never resubscribe. I no more trust the marketing department of a game company to determine what is good for a game than I would trust the marketing department of a hospital to perform surgery.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But remember that the most financially successful hospital can pay the best doctors, buy the best equipment, and generally focus on patient satisfaction. So you might want to rethink that. It's not either/or, it's both. To call for "pure art", free of the constraints of economy, is to try to chop off Adam Smith's invisible hand. Good luck with that.
[ QUOTE ]
As to the players, most of them lack the overall knowledge to judge what will increase or decrease player subscriptions. I've seen many popular changes made in other games that, nonetheless, hurt those games in the long run.
[/ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt you could prove that in any substantive way. More likely, your assumption that your tastes and ideas of what's "good" for a game, and its lack of popularity with the people on these boards, is leading you to defensively assume a posture of undeserved superiority, so that you can reassure yourself that all these plebes calling for this "stupid" change just don't know any better. I would beg to differ. But I don't think it would do any good.
[ QUOTE ]
And? You would prefer the GM to run a game he dislikes? To resent his own game? Would you expect that to be an enjoyable experience for the players?
[/ QUOTE ]
A good GM, like a good author, or a good filmmaker, tailors his product to the tastes of his target audience. If he bores them, or angers them, on a repeated basis, then he will receive no praise for his work, nor any financial rewards. While this may appeal to your vision of the "misunderstood genius" staying true to his vision in spite of the impoverished culture in which he is creating it, most humans prefer to bask in the praise of those who see what they've created, and then drive their ferrari home to their pools, where their hot girlfriends are waiting for them.
Might sound crass, but there it is. Again, this is market forces at work, combined with human nature. I didn't create the universe, but I DO try to understand it a little piece of it. To do otherwise is to court insanity.
[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, if Cryptic can't design games that work the way they intend them to and still find sufficent audience to remain in business they should not be in the game design business.
[/ QUOTE ]
So in your world, there is no room for "rethinking"? For learning from one's mistakes? For compromise? Such a black and white concept of existence might help you feel more comfortable in the face of failure, but in the end it will almost assuredly result in nothing but more failure.
Sorry, but yes, I think that, if you want to run a business for a living, you will have to accept that, at some level, your customers will dictate what you offer. If your dream is to run an auto parts store for lamborghini, and you open it in, say, Zaire, you may find your dream is very short-lived. You must either pander to your consumer base, or find a new one. The former is usually WORLDS easier than the latter.
[ QUOTE ]
Or doesn't work as the case may be. If you want to play a game run without a central design philosophy I'm certain there are still some out there that survive. I would prefer not to.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, black and white. You think that it MUST be either NO central design philosophy, or one set in stone, immutable, and unchanging. Again, sorry, but that's not the way the world works. I suggest you consider the century-old example of the buggy whip makers in Economics 101 courses around the world. There used to be buggy whip makers. The world demanded something else. Some adapted, and some went out of business.
Guess who was happier with their business in the end?
Here endeth the lesson.
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks Ice_Hot, same point I've been making all alone.
It's occasionally nice when someone conclusively proves I'm not a minority of one 
[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, make it three.
I like it too. Then again, I would like to see it applied to timed missions, missions that go to timed missions as soon as you finish the first one, and missions that require more than one blinkie to be hit at the same time. In those cases, I can see the agument that it can break a degee of "immersion" but from the game side, it's a QoL feature the same as wanting to know about the AV's. I've accidentally taken timed missions (or one I just finished led to a timed) right before time for me to log. Most timed missions are clear if you read the text, but some are very vague, and a little red warning like we get for PvP would be nice
"I play characters. I have to have a very strong visual appearance, backstory, name, etc. to get involved with a character, otherwise I simply won't play it very long. I'm not an RPer by any stretch of the imagination, but character concept is very important for me."- Back Alley Brawler
I couldn't agree more.
As I told Lothart in a private message, I would whole-heartedly support such a thing. On the other hand, it sort of eliminates the "holy crap, what's HE doing here!!" moment when you run into a group of enemies and suddenly realize you're in DEEP trouble. Which would still be there with an elite boss, but not if you were notified in advance that the big bad wolf was going to be in attendance.
pro's and con's, baby, pro's and con's. I'd be willing to sacrifice that, if people would stop talking like this change ruins the game for them.
And Lothart, in the PM you and I have had going back and forth, I noticed something...you said once that you group almost constantly with a set bunch of friends and sg-mates. But your main complaint about this seems to be that, if you were solo and on a low diff setting, you would get an elite boss...the thing is, if you upped your difficulty setting OR were with your friends, this wouldn't be an issue, so really aren't you making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill? I mean, the percentage of missions that HAVE AV's, the percentage of time that you would be alone, and the ability of MOST toons to solo successfully on the middle or higher diff settings would seem to almost guarantee that your liklelihood of having to repeat any given mission would be....well, pretty low.
And since your main concern, according to you, was that if you had to repeat a bunch of missions, you'd outlevel your contacts, but you can only GET a lot of AV/Hero missions (and by a lot I mean like an average of one every three missions) is in the late-game), it just doesn't seem like much of a problem.
Not to minimize your dissatisfaction. Just seems like you're expending more energy in fighting this than you would in just repeating a few missions. Hell, put yourself in debt if you have to repeat the mission, then you won't outlevel your contacts. I've done it. It works.
For what it's worth.
[ QUOTE ]
First...I confirm that we're working on right now (as in pohsyb in the next room) to add CoV costume parts into CoH if you own both games....
Then we repeal the hated stealth nerf. The reason why: many well reasoned posts. It's that simple. You guys pointed out the problems.
AND now...we're changing the way Archvillains spawn. A ton of forum goers disliked adding so many AV's into missions a while back...so we've come up with a solution. If the team size and mission difficulty are ABOVE a certain level, an Archvillain spawns. Below that, players will face only an Elite Boss. If the mission is set on the first two levels of difficulty, it takes 4 heroes or more to spawn an Arch Villain. On the third level, 3 heroes or more. On the fourth level, 2 heroes. On the highest (Invincible), a solo hero will spawn an AV. Note this works in BOTH City of Heroes and Villains.
In order to incentivize larger teams, Positron is going to add a bonus to AV rewards!
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely fabulous!! You guys rock! (and yes i've been posting this reply all day, because so many of us doomsay, I'm gonna balance it out with applause).
~~~CHEERS~~~
Uncalled for is me holding on to the envoy of shadows mish sicne before Katrina hit my hometown.
Thank you so much I can finally get this mish done with for good, yeah I might have to wait awhile but I've waited this long what's another 2 months.
Thank you thank you thank you.
[ QUOTE ]
And Lothart, in the PM you and I have had going back and forth, I noticed something...you said once that you group almost constantly with a set bunch of friends and sg-mates. But your main complaint about this seems to be that, if you were solo and on a low diff setting, you would get an elite boss...the thing is, if you upped your difficulty setting OR were with your friends, this wouldn't be an issue, so really aren't you making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill? I mean, the percentage of missions that HAVE AV's, the percentage of time that you would be alone, and the ability of MOST toons to solo successfully on the middle or higher diff settings would seem to almost guarantee that your liklelihood of having to repeat any given mission would be....well, pretty low.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, what I said was I solo mopst of my OWN missions because I earn a lot o XP when I group with my SG so I like to stretch out the contacts a bit by taking my own missions. I failed to mention I sometimes lower the difficulty just o earn less XP from these missions.
[ QUOTE ]
And since your main concern, according to you, was that if you had to repeat a bunch of missions, you'd outlevel your contacts, but you can only GET a lot of AV/Hero missions (and by a lot I mean like an average of one every three missions) is in the late-game), it just doesn't seem like much of a problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
It means AVs are rare in the levels I actually /play/. I've never broken 40 in a year's accumulated playtime. Which only makes it /more/ important I don't miss the few out there.
[ QUOTE ]
Not to minimize your dissatisfaction. Just seems like you're expending more energy in fighting this than you would in just repeating a few missions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fighting what? I've repeatedly said I'm not asking the announced changes not be made just because I don't like something doesn't mean I am calling for a change! It is possible to accept that a change you don't like will be made to the game.
I'm just asking for a few more things I feel are Q.o.L. changes that will make me dislike the change (which I accept as inevitable) a little less.
And the sole reason I posted so much all day was I had NOTHING to do at my office. I'm going /nuts/ from boredom there.
This has gone way, way, way off topic and I have no interest in debating economics with someone who is stil referring to the "Invisible Hand of the Marketplace" that's been discreditted since John Nash.
However,
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the players, most of them lack the overall knowledge to judge what will increase or decrease player subscriptions. I've seen many popular changes made in other games that, nonetheless, hurt those games in the long run.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seriously doubt you could prove that in any substantive way. More likely, your assumption that your tastes and ideas of what's "good" for a game, and its lack of popularity with the people on these boards, is leading you to defensively assume a posture of undeserved superiority, so that you can reassure yourself that all these plebes calling for this "stupid" change just don't know any better. I would beg to differ. But I don't think it would do any good.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was on the administrative team for a game called Film Mogul (an re-incarnation of Virtual Producer). If you run a websearch you may still find some fan sites referencing it.
The game primarily consisted of people writing or adapting short screenplay treatments (though some were full length) and then posting them for other players to read and rate. To add game elements real life stars were used, fake posters made for the movies and box office formula determined virtual revenue which allowed to pay for larger and larger budget virtual films.
At a later stage in the game players requested the right to open Virtual Talent Agencies and manage real life stars. This feature was added.
Players began opening their own websites for these virtual agencies and, despite implicit instruction in the game rules that all sites must clearly be labeled as part of a game one day the owner received a cease and desist order from a major talent agency. A Japanese compnay had contacted one of the virtual agencies believing it to be a real agency and had eceived, from a player a rude reply. When they did contact the real agency they found the site themselves, found the site it was connected to (i.e., Film Mogul) and threatened to sue. The owner, faced with either a major redeisgn of his game or a lawsuit (when he himself was just coming up before the bar) opted to simply shut the game down.
Now, by your own logic a game closing is bad, right?
So, I'd say players adding a change that caused the game to close under the threat of legal action would fall under the category of "hurting the game in the long run", wouldn't you?
Should you wish to verify the facts behind this story pm me and I can put you in touch with a relatively well known blogger who can verify the story.
Now that I have provided a substantive example would you care to retract your personal attack(s)?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice change. Since I've been [censored] about use of development time with regards to the stealth change, this AV change is what I call a great use of development time.
And a question for Positron. Whats a World Spawn?
[/ QUOTE ]
A World Spawn is a spawn that takes place in the game-world, not in an instanced mission.
The Hamidon Mitochondria are an example of an Arch-villain World Spawn, and thus will not be reduced in any way by this change.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know Posi... Hami takes a long long time on a less populated server... And in our case just not enough folks around on Victory even have that kind of time and or the inclination to even bother do it... We have tried. Real concentrated effort tried. Numbers just not enough and abilities of those that do come since enhancement diversification sepcificaly (the 'Hold' duration of powers) Victory and possibly other servers can manage to get a full and total hold on him is just .. . don't mean to whine but well just far harder then it deserves to be. In fact nothing in this game should be 5 hours labor then total denial cause you didnt have enough controllers... Or am I wrong here?!?! Tell me your intent isn't that the only way to beat hammi is to have over 80 control powers trying to hold that guy... cause right now that's pretty much what it is. 
If those mitos were merely elite bosses the emphasis on abosolutely having to hold Hamy so he cant spawn one for each and every hero and pet present might not be quite as devistating as it is now... also the event might be more attractive with easier to take down mitos in the first place so folks can get right on to hamy himself, and I might add may see more action overall on all servers not just our medium low Victory. Call it a quality of life thing... but those Mitos should not be AV's. Or in no way should Hami spawn that many if the hold fails when he gets to half damage... If he shot out say 2-4 teams could be kept on standby to attempt to get them before a total wipe occurs. As it is the mito spawn when hami's at half is just a "Sorry suckers! Better luck next time..." For one small error after all that effort and work by so many people. If you want to keep the mitos AV's and 2-3 hour effort to clear them then the hour or meore spent trying to hold then take out Hami needs to be more resonable... nerf his resistance a tad please. Pretty please...
Please... Rethink that raid altogether.
Personal opinion. 
I am admittedly a little looney.
As for the rest of the changes and pull back on the Stealth nerf. Bravo 
way to listen to your customers.
Take care and thanks,
Heather (AKA Rogue Demonhunter)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, I really don't care how skilled you are, your .44 bullets are not going to hit 10x harder than someone else's .44 bullets.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, but someone with the skill to reliably deliver that bullet to your head is far more likely to kill you than someone who's random spray is going to hit you in the arm instead.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, let's back up a bit: Exactly what point are you trying to make?
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)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, I really don't care how skilled you are, your .44 bullets are not going to hit 10x harder than someone else's .44 bullets.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, but someone with the skill to reliably deliver that bullet to your head is far more likely to kill you than someone who's random spray is going to hit you in the arm instead.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except that bosses and lt's have actually had their accuracy reduced while minions were left alone.
Really, it's a game mechanic, nothing more. As Kali said, it doesn't require a "realistic" explanation, it's just the game's shortcut to making tougher opponents tougher.
Mind you, having a Hellion boss pull out a bazooka instead of a capgun with uber-damage *would* be interesting.
[/ QUOTE ]
People who breath fire probably shouldnt carry around explosives. Probably drives up their life insurance rates.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that Damned are probably not considered good risks by insurance carriers.
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)
Then we repeal the hated stealth nerf.
The 'hated' stealth nerf? What of the 'hated' I5 and ED nerfs?
'Many well reasoned arguments?' What of thousands of well presented arguments against ED and I5 nerfs (especially against tankers)?
Is this just a spin opportunity to show how the dev team can 'listen' to the playing masses? If so, it is not very genuine or believable. I am very insulted by Statesman telling me when and how i should 'have fun' playing this game.
If the devs really listen to the paying playing masses, then go back through the past several months and hundreds of thousands of posts. Repeal or fix ED. Stop proclaiming these changes to COH are not aimed at 'balancing' PVP. Give us back the game we originally signed up for.
Sorry for the rant, but this spin doctoring is just an additional insult.
Waiting for the DC or Marvel MMOG.....
Well done. Well done indeed, and Kudos to your whole teams, both to Posi and States
[ QUOTE ]
This has gone way, way, way off topic and I have no interest in debating economics with someone who is stil referring to the "Invisible Hand of the Marketplace" that's been discreditted since John Nash.
[/ QUOTE ]
So which is it? Do you not want to debate me, or do you want to? You say you don't, then in the same sentence, you try to "one-shot" my commentary. Not successfully, mind you, but you try.
Oh, and if you're going to try to be dismissively superior, intellectually speaking, you might want to run your post through a spellchecker. I don't use one, but then I don't mis-spell "discredited". Makes it tough to take you seriously.
[ QUOTE ]
Players began opening their own websites for these virtual agencies and, despite implicit instruction in the game rules that all sites must clearly be labeled as part of a game one day the owner received a cease and desist order from a major talent agency. A Japanese compnay had contacted one of the virtual agencies believing it to be a real agency and had eceived, from a player a rude reply. When they did contact the real agency they found the site themselves, found the site it was connected to (i.e., Film Mogul) and threatened to sue. The owner, faced with either a major redeisgn of his game or a lawsuit (when he himself was just coming up before the bar) opted to simply shut the game down.
Now, by your own logic a game closing is bad, right?
So, I'd say players adding a change that caused the game to close under the threat of legal action would fall under the category of "hurting the game in the long run", wouldn't you?
Should you wish to verify the facts behind this story pm me and I can put you in touch with a relatively well known blogger who can verify the story.
Now that I have provided a substantive example would you care to retract your personal attack(s)?
[/ QUOTE ]
1) I would suggest that you might have been better off making your instructions explicit instead of implicit, and that you put it in a user licensing agreement to give your game some sort of legal protection from people who are ignoring your instructions, much like CoH does in the EULA regarding people creating characters that are "homage" characters.
2) Failure to cover your butt legally does not mean the players ideas for "talent agency" game sites were bad ideas. Furthermore, players' failure to respond to people who misunderstand the nature of their websites in a mature and considerate manner does not mean the idea to have the websites was bad.
3) Finally, I've never heard of this game, and have no idea whether or not it was "for profit", whether or not it MADE a profit. You have a pattern of comparing apples and oranges in this arena, as re: your example of you paying "site fees" and having to charge to cover those, then claiming that your refusal to respond to player requests for a change in a not-for-profit situation somehow being parallel to the refusal of a company to respond to customer concerns in a "for-profit" situation. It's not the same. It's not even CLOSE to the same. In your example, you are charging people just enough to cover the site fees, while donating your time out of a love for the game. Anyone who wants to "run their own game" would have to invest considerably more than their portion of the site fee to do so, at least in terms of opportunity costs related to their own time invested, if not in materials, etc. Hence you, as the person DONATING those measurable assets to the other players, have a right to impose your own conditions on that donation. BUT...if you were charging them a fee to be their game master, and that was your sole source of income, and they demanded a certain change, and you didn't come through, they would stop paying you, you would be out of a job, and your "vision" would be lost.
So it is here: This "administrative board", whatever it was, was it for-profit? Did the game make a profit? Was it an ongoing subscription service? It's hard to know, and since you have shown a failure in past examples to understand the import of that (as I think I've shown above), I am loathe to simply trust that those things that are unspoken are as they would need to be for this to be a "substantive" proof. Further, an unknown game, with a vastly different model of useage, that went out of business not because of a change they made but because they failed to make it properly (insisting that players include an obvious screen tag that the site is part of a game, and that no one on the site ws actually a client, blahblahblah, or that the players would be sanctioned/banned/etc, failure to establish this in a EULA, etc, etc) hardly means the players' IDEA was bad, or that its proper implementation wouldn't have been perfectly harmless.
So sorry, but no, this is not substantive. As for apologizing for my personal attacks, I'm sorry if you felt bad about them, but look back at the beginning of the post to which I am responding. See how you insult me, then dismiss my arguments without dealing with them substantively? This tone is woven throughout your posts, and it is both intellectually dishonest/impoverished and antagonistic.
In other words, no, I will not apologize for calling you on your B.S., although I am sorry we have completely hijacked this thread. Bottom line: the AV/EB change is a great one, and the small inconvience you suffer is easily overcome. If you need me to send you a step-by-step guide on how to do it, PM me, and I will. As for your desire for a "flag" to notify players that a mission includes an AV/HERO, I've already said I support such an idea. And I have no desire to discuss any of these ideas, which I find to be perfectly self-evident to anyone approaching them with a modicum of objectivity, any further. You've made your opinion clear, and I trust I have as well. We can let the readers (as if anyone cares) judge for themselves which of us is correct.
Have a great day.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, I really don't care how skilled you are, your .44 bullets are not going to hit 10x harder than someone else's .44 bullets.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, but someone with the skill to reliably deliver that bullet to your head is far more likely to kill you than someone who's random spray is going to hit you in the arm instead.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except that bosses and lt's have actually had their accuracy reduced while minions were left alone.
Really, it's a game mechanic, nothing more. As Kali said, it doesn't require a "realistic" explanation, it's just the game's shortcut to making tougher opponents tougher.
Mind you, having a Hellion boss pull out a bazooka instead of a capgun with uber-damage *would* be interesting.
[/ QUOTE ]
People who breath fire probably shouldnt carry around explosives. Probably drives up their life insurance rates.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that Damned are probably not considered good risks by insurance carriers.
[/ QUOTE ]
and to complcate matters lts/.bosses/etc still have a higeher accuracy then a minnion even if it was reduced...from thei orignal value....
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 ]
AND now...we're changing the way Archvillains spawn. A ton of forum goers disliked adding so many AV's into missions a while back...so we've come up with a solution. If the team size and mission difficulty are ABOVE a certain level, an Archvillain spawns. Below that, players will face only an Elite Boss. If the mission is set on the first two levels of difficulty, it takes 4 heroes or more to spawn an Arch Villain. On the third level, 3 heroes or more. On the fourth level, 2 heroes. On the highest (Invincible), a solo hero will spawn an AV. Note this works in BOTH City of Heroes and Villains.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. You're finally doing something right. I'm shocked. And it's actually an elegant solution that makes sense. Nice work.
All I can say is, it's about time.
[ QUOTE ]
In order to incentivize larger teams, Positron is going to add a bonus to AV rewards!
[/ QUOTE ]
No reward, no matter how large, could make me go through the AV pain.
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
"Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
- Thomas Jefferson
I survived my first encounter with an AV, and was AFK. As a participating defender. (Go Autofollow, assist, Shadowfall, and Twilight Grasp on autoattack!)
I have never understood peoples fear - the only pain I have ever had is if there isn't enough people - and that has always been on the TFs anyway.
Orc&Pie No.53230 There is an orc, and somehow, he got a pie. And you are hungry.
www.repeat-offenders.net
Negaduck: I see you found the crumb. I knew you'd never notice the huge flag.
[ QUOTE ]
I survived my first encounter with an AV, and was AFK. As a participating defender. (Go Autofollow, assist, Shadowfall, and Twilight Grasp on autoattack!)
I have never understood peoples fear - the only pain I have ever had is if there isn't enough people - and that has always been on the TFs anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Owch theres a valid point... what if your the last soul left on a TF half way or more done and you actualy want to complete it? 
Surely something could be done for 1-2 folks left in a Grand finale mission of a TF with the loss of the rest of the team due to whatever issues or needs came up at home?
Take care,
RDH
[ QUOTE ]
Owch theres a valid point... what if your the last soul left on a TF half way or more done and you actualy want to complete it?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that then, to quote the great philosopher and thinker Mickey Jagger, the phrase that applies is, "You can't always get what you want..."
I've done many TF's (although I must say, I've certainly never been able to go AFK), and have only failed on one respec (which was fun, I'd never seen the reactor go "boom" before), no matter how many left. Of course, I've never been ALONE at the end, either, I think the minimum I've had left at the end was three.
Oh, and I've had to quit once or twice, but I always told the team leader that was likely before we started.
Meh, I don't know...someone made the argument to me once that TF's SHOULD be the most difficult thing to complete, and though we argued back and forth about being able to recruit help, even if they couldn't get the badge/respec/reward, I do see his point. TF's are one of those "I'm doing a great undertaking" things, that you SHOULD be able to fail much more easily than normal missions, or even AV missions.
At least, that's how I see it.
[ QUOTE ]
AND now...we're changing the way Archvillains spawn.
[/ QUOTE ]
Woot!!!! Thank you! Now I can have ii]some[/i] hope of actually soloing my solo-only toon all the way to 50!
/em does a happy dance.
[ QUOTE ]
Then we repeal the hated stealth nerf.
The 'hated' stealth nerf? What of the 'hated' I5 and ED nerfs?
'Many well reasoned arguments?' What of thousands of well presented arguments against ED and I5 nerfs (especially against tankers)?
Is this just a spin opportunity to show how the dev team can 'listen' to the playing masses? If so, it is not very genuine or believable. I am very insulted by Statesman telling me when and how i should 'have fun' playing this game.
If the devs really listen to the paying playing masses, then go back through the past several months and hundreds of thousands of posts. Repeal or fix ED. Stop proclaiming these changes to COH are not aimed at 'balancing' PVP. Give us back the game we originally signed up for.
Sorry for the rant, but this spin doctoring is just an additional insult.
Waiting for the DC or Marvel MMOG.....
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey my tankers would love to have I5 tanker nerf done away with and live with just ED but no that is not going to happen its the affect of both that got me where it counts.
Pinnacle
Arch light L50 INV/SS
Psiberia L50 Kin/Psi
Screaming Mentallica L50 Sonic/MM
Infinity
Arc Voltinator L50 SS/Elec
Mind Fire Kinesis L50 Fire/Kin
Flaming Screamer L50 Fire/Sonic
[ QUOTE ]
Hey my tankers would love to have I5 tanker nerf done away with and live with just ED but no that is not going to happen its the affect of both that got me where it counts.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, we still have very little information on the future changes to be made to the game. My guess would be that they have been collecting data on how things have been performing, and after anylizing this information they will make chabges as needed in the form of some small buffs. I'm not saying that there still aren't a few nerfs comming, but my guess is that they're going to be relatively small and not so close together.
[ QUOTE ]
Then we repeal the hated stealth nerf.
The 'hated' stealth nerf? What of the 'hated' I5 and ED nerfs?
'Many well reasoned arguments?' What of thousands of well presented arguments against ED and I5 nerfs (especially against tankers)?
Is this just a spin opportunity to show how the dev team can 'listen' to the playing masses? If so, it is not very genuine or believable. I am very insulted by Statesman telling me when and how i should 'have fun' playing this game.
If the devs really listen to the paying playing masses, then go back through the past several months and hundreds of thousands of posts. Repeal or fix ED. Stop proclaiming these changes to COH are not aimed at 'balancing' PVP. Give us back the game we originally signed up for.
Sorry for the rant, but this spin doctoring is just an additional insult.
Waiting for the DC or Marvel MMOG.....
[/ QUOTE ]
Fear and anger in this young padawan I sense....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, I really don't care how skilled you are, your .44 bullets are not going to hit 10x harder than someone else's .44 bullets.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, but someone with the skill to reliably deliver that bullet to your head is far more likely to kill you than someone who's random spray is going to hit you in the arm instead.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except that bosses and lt's have actually had their accuracy reduced while minions were left alone.
Really, it's a game mechanic, nothing more. As Kali said, it doesn't require a "realistic" explanation, it's just the game's shortcut to making tougher opponents tougher.
Mind you, having a Hellion boss pull out a bazooka instead of a capgun with uber-damage *would* be interesting.
[/ QUOTE ]
People who breath fire probably shouldnt carry around explosives. Probably drives up their life insurance rates.
Heroes
Dysmal
Lumynous
Sam Steele
Pluck
Wile
Slagheap
Pressure Wave
Rhiannon Bel
Verified
Stellaric
Syd Mallorn
Villains
Jotunheim Skald
Saer Maen
Jen Corbae
Illuminance
Venator Arawn
Taiga Dryad
Tarranos