Not once, not twice, but three times...
By
008Zulu,
Posted on: 2006-01-10 16:26 in Developers' Corner
States...I...I...I think I love you. I'm buying you...a pizza!
WOLVES AND BEES 2012
[ QUOTE ]
Perfect solution! Don't even worry about making missions droppable now, as far as I'm concerned. My only standing request now regarding missions would be to make completing a mission count for every member of the group who has that exact mission (i.e. Not having to defeat Clockwork King 3 times, because three people in your group have the mission.)
Thanks!
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, second that idea because it gives encouragement to teaming.
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
Not a bait and switch, suppression was actually Dwimble's idea. And it wasn't ony the griefing issues with the click and AoE stealths, it was also the issue that powers meant to aid teams were instead going to aggrivate them with the current implementation. Thanks goes also to SolLuminous for compiling all our issues with the change into well thought out format.
Thanks again Devs for listening! And thanks for the new Costumes and the Archvillain changes. I'm really look forward to those!
[ 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?
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 ]
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
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 ]
[ 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.
well, I have to say, "Thanks". I've taken your name in vain many times in the last year on these boards, not the least of which has been in the "making the game more solo-friendly" consolidated thread. Just the other day, I posted that it was a dead thread, that you didn't care about making the game more solo-friendly, and that every change in the last three issues proved it.
This is me, eating crow. Never been so happy to be proven wrong. No more team hunts to clear my mission screen, now I only team if I actually WANT to.
Thank you, sir. May I have another?
[ 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 ]
That's like claiming a stone is enchanted to ward against tigers, then standing in the middle of Kentucky and insisting its worked since there are no tigers.
[ 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 ]
But these are certainly not worth offering one's firstborn for...
But then it occurred to me that maybe this just shows how starved for something positive the players of this game really are. These reactions are not unlike giving food to a starving man, or water to someone that has just walked across a desert. Maybe you should take this as a sign to give some positive changes to this community rather than nerf on top of nerf.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, what Val_Halla here said... QFT (emphasis mine)
I think the AV/EB thing is a pretty big deal though. It gives a degree of variety and control over AV missions that we never had before. From solo to at least a 4 person team, you get to chose when you face an AV.
By the way, I never said it before all the times I've seen it, but I think that avatar rocks! 
"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.
I am extremely happy about this change. BUT (there's always a but), I have a question regarding AV kill credit.
- Does this AV change apply to Praetorian AVs in the high level CoH missions? It would seem to, which leads to my next question.
- Will defeating said Praetorians as Elite Bosses grant the relevant Badge?
It would be good to know this, so that players do not find themselves defeating the boss only to discover that they won't get Badge credit for the kill. It seems logical to assume that the change will apply to them and that the player would recieve Badge credit, but confirmation would be nice.
[ 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 ]
/e praise everyone at cryptic and ncsoft :-)
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
That's like claiming a stone is enchanted to ward against tigers, then standing in the middle of Kentucky and insisting its worked since there are no tigers.
[/ QUOTE ]
OMG! Where can I get one of these amazing stones? Do you have one? How much for it?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
That's like claiming a stone is enchanted to ward against tigers, then standing in the middle of Kentucky and insisting its worked since there are no tigers.
[/ QUOTE ]
OMG! Where can I get one of these amazing stones? Do you have one? How much for it?
[/ QUOTE ]
...
>.>
<.<
Fifty bucks.
[ 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.
In order to incentivize larger teams, Positron is going to add a bonus to AV rewards!
[/ QUOTE ]
That's fine and all, but is there any possibility you could reconsider your criteria for AV status characters in the first place? There's something innately frustrating that I've pounded Infernal's head in on three separate occasions, around ten levels apart each, but he's still going to be tougher than me if he pops his head up come the 41+ CoV game. Likewise, Sea Witch progressively gets stronger after each time I defeat her, even after the game itself tells me she's not going to be bothering me again.
Would it be too much to see such characters be considered even matches for me, or even better, to have them be so much weaker that they have to team up in order to face me, the way I used to have to do for them? Aren't these games supposed to be about how we become powers in our own right, rather than firmly standing in the shadows of the game's signature characters?
[ 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 ]
QFT!!!!!
especially : 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.
Give me the doooooom posts anyday. These bootlicking marathons just make me ill.
I am also against the costume pieces. I would like the games to be seperate istead of more homogenized. If its missing peices thats fine but there should be some things that just dont cross over. If they must implement the awful switching sides then thats when you should be able to choose villain costumes.
[ 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 ]
I see NOTHING in this post stating they are gonna go with suppression of stealth idea. Where was that posted?
Thank you very much Statesman, I to have took your name in vain over ED and then the stealth nerf. Thanx for the roll back of at least one of them.
/e bow!
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
Very cool.
[ QUOTE ]
In order to incentivize larger teams, Positron is going to add a bonus to AV rewards!
[/ QUOTE ]
Make it a new video card and you're on. 
I already PMed you my gratitude, but I'll say it here too, for all to see.
THANK YOU!!!
AVs are the only thing that ever get me to seriously stop playing. They were a roadblock, moreso when you had to fight them over and over (*cough ENVOY OF SHADOWS cough*) and assemble new teams each time.
While I'm going to cross my fingers hoping one day AV encounters will be something more than "A big fight", till then this change is going to be well received I'm sure.
Thanks so much!!
PS: Hey...umm...how's the praetorian/Statesman Pal badges going to work now? Will the Elite Bosses count for those?
[ 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 ]
FINALLY!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WOW!! OMG!!! YOUARETEHBEST!!!
PvP is still awful compared to the other PvP choices out there(5 million customers=doing something right).
[/ QUOTE ]
Umm? I've played the "5 MILLION CUSTOMER" game, and neither the PvE or PvP can compare. Can you transform into a flying squid while your opponent jumps 100m in the air and a third person irradiates you while running 80mph?
No?
Not as good, sorry.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can a mage punch my warrior's armor clean off?
No?
Then CoH's PVP can't be as good, can it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure it can- It's called toggle dropping. A Tank has their defenses activated, along comes a Stalker/Mage or another AT- proceeds with a AS or a brawl, BAM!! Tank loses their armour/defenses. I don't play WOW so if my parallel is incorrect please tell me.
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you are going to weave theories and spin falsehood, you atleast need to start somewhere close to the facts.
"ED" was sugjested by players off and on going all the way back to Issue 3, maybe ever Issue 2.
Well before I5, HO's, and Arena PvP.
Care to try again? I think you dropped you hat, Ath.
NCIS: Best gorram show in the 'verse.
-------------------------
Man, you, sir, are on a roll today.