I'm a little disappointed.
By
8_Ball,
Posted on: 2006-04-25 09:18 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
I'm certain anyone who wants can come up with a story that fits. I think the complaint has always been that its a constricted position. Not that it cant be done.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. It's not a case of imagination like claimed in this thread. It's a case of perceived loss of control over one's character.
And that is where the problem lies.
People have bemoaned CoH's lack of a true "ending" for a while. Or, at the very least, lack of your characters actions in the overall involvement in the game environment. Sure, when you defeat Dr. Vahz, you no longer see Vahz (unless you go back to a low level zone, that is), but that's about it.
It seemed obvious that Lord Recluse and Mako personally wanted to change this from every interview I've seen from them since CoV alpha. They wanted the overall story arc of the "Chosen One" to be a prominent and overreaching theme.
So it comes down to the proverbial rock and a hard place. Some people want a bigger overall story arc. Some people want more freedom to do whatever they want. Both pay the same 15 dollars a month.
How would you handle it?
I think having two different games, one each that fits each philosophy, is a great way to solve the problem.
And really, that brings us into the next argument. "CoV feels too much like CoH" versus "CoV isn't similiar to CoH enough." Both sides have their points and non-points. Both sides pay the same 15 dollars a month.
How would you handle it?
Current Badge Hunter: Plot Device (Rad/Thermal/Dark) - 1,268 Xbox Live: Friggin Taser
King of Electricity, Lead Inmate running the Carl and Sons asylum, the "Man" behind the Establishment, Given Honor in Hat Form By Paragon City (Favorite Forum Poster 2006!), Master of Ceremonies of the Fair Use Law podcast
[ QUOTE ]
"A good roleplayer can roleplay anything."
[/ QUOTE ]
That's true, but I'd still rather not have content that I have to torturously work around. Just because you can tolerate something does not make it immune from criticism. Also, for the record, I'm not a fan of Kheldians either. I've tried 'em, and they've all ended up on the backburner, because they DO have some of the same problems.
First, The issue of imagination, and it being preferable to explanation came into the thread in specific response to the following,
[ QUOTE ]
I would love if they adapted the "Patron" set-up for heroes and gave us a storyline or two that explain where we get these new epic powers and why they are important to our characters.
[/ QUOTE ]
I stand by my statement. Such an addition would be substituting explanation for imagination.
Second, if CoV is giving us an preconceived "ending", then maybe there really is a larger problem with a lack of imagination as well, or at least the perception on the devs part that we're lacking in that regard.
[ QUOTE ]
So it comes down to the proverbial rock and a hard place. Some people want a bigger overall story arc. Some people want more freedom to do whatever they want. Both pay the same 15 dollars a month.
How would you handle it?
[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to think these are mutually exclusive. I see no reason why both can't coexist. The big overall arc doesn't have to interfere with freedom. If you want to impact things on a large scale, join up. If you wanna just go be a villain on your own, you'd be ignoring all the other stuff anyway.
[ QUOTE ]
I think having two different games, one each that fits each philosophy, is a great way to solve the problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I think it's a poor one.
[ QUOTE ]
And really, that brings us into the next argument. "CoV feels too much like CoH" versus "CoV isn't similiar to CoH enough." Both sides have their points and non-points. Both sides pay the same 15 dollars a month.
How would you handle it?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's a non-issue IMO. I don't see what it matters how similar the games are or aren't to each other, what matters is whether they're fun. Is CoV fun? Sure is. But it's not nearly fun enough to keep my 15 dollars a month after the first couple months I played it. The only time I've spent on CoV lately is to try and painfully solo through the last 2 levels on my dominator.
[ QUOTE ]
Look at comic books. A classic theme is the ol' villain doublecross. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. So your brute "buddied" up and swore "allegiance" to Mako. Little did Mako know you only did so to get into his good graces to steal a little of his coralax power and eventually overthrow him and Lord Recluse. Or perhaps you did so only temporarily to try to learn the secrets of Sharkhead Isle once and for all. Or maybe you were mauled by a shark (or perhaps you prevented shark mauling by kissing it on the snout like Abigail from Duck Tales) as a child and want to use your fear to unlock your sense of vengence on the heroes, ala Batman using his fear of bats to his advantage.
[/ QUOTE ]
And again we won't know if that's possible until we know what's involved in the story arc.
While what you say is entirely possible, it might not be. Sure some Brute might go into the whole thing with the idea of taking Mako's power, and then using it against him, only to discover that as he gets further and further along in the story that option doesn't exist. What if at the end of the story arc, when you swear allegiance to your patron, the story pretty much spells it out that given the pact you make you can't attack your patron? Or what if you are told that if you try to use your spirit sharks on Mako, they'll turn around and have a feeding frenzy on you, rather than the other way around?
Of course this is all speculation, and until the content of the story arcs are known we don't really know if we will have the option of using our imaginations or not. That's the only point that I'm trying to make. I can come up with plenty of RP reasons to fit PPPs into my characters stories if I wanted to, the question is, will the game world allow me to, given the story driven nature of the PPPs on offer?
[ QUOTE ]
Does that put you in my bizzaro world, or me in yours?
[/ QUOTE ]
Neither, you're just dialing back a hair on the "wait and see" argument.
[ QUOTE ]
B) I can give it a try and see if it works out. If it doesn't work out at all - say, I hate the powers, I hate working for the patron, the storyline is all wrong, etc. - then I likely won't take any of those characters much past 40. It takes too much effort for a character I'm not happy with. But, there's the (albeit small) chance that they do actually work out. Maybe, just maybe everything clicks into place and I'll be happy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. PPPs work so well overall, thematically, that the best you can offer is 'maybe, just maybe' it'll all be fine and good in a general sense. What a ringing endorsement. No marketing job for you, boyo.
Digression:
There's no doubt that PPPs will work for some seamlessly - even a slim majority. There's no debating that it won't. Do PPPs and post-40 content serve the entertainment needs of the general audience as well and as easily as APPs and CoH's unconnected post-40 content does? There's no need to 'wait and see' that there exists additional opportunity costs inflicted on CoV players who want options outside of basic power selections as opposed to CoH players.
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you, in your infinite wisdom, can forsee how it will affect your concepts. I don't have that luxury, so I chose to err on the side of caution, and at least give it a try.
[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't rocket science. Some villain concepts will work very well under the current PPP structure, and some will not. A less flexible system is very unlikely to accomplish everything that a more flexible system can overall. I've said it before, If CoV versions of APPs had been released at the same time as PPPs, this really would be a moot question. It would be just another minor note in the "CoV gets a whole lot in I7, CoH not so much" song. 
[ QUOTE ]
"Telling" implies that I'm issuing a decree here. I'm really not.
I offer a simple suggestion...
[/ QUOTE ]
Quote: "Perhaps you will have a happier life if you wait with the hate 'till you have something better than press releases to base it on. Like, say, five minutes of experience. "
This is your response to a post that offered no hate in the first place. It politely offered examples of how someone could know that the PPPs won't work with their villain concept because you declared that everyone is ignorant of how well PPPs might mesh. It's a decree you issue - it's derision. It works better when the post you reply to inflammatory instead of just respectfully in disagreement.
Just sayin'.
[ QUOTE ]
If we're truly admitting this is a case about imagination, ...
[/ QUOTE ]
'We' are not.
Freedom ain't known for its uber RP and it ain't starting now.
[ QUOTE ]
The devs have tried something different with epic powers in CoV and ultimately with CoV as a whole. And the judges are screaming "Get back in your box," "Don't take a chance," or "We only like you when you are doing the same old thing."
[/ QUOTE ]
Mm. Not really, and I hope the devs are not as emotionally hyper-sensitive as you portray them.
[ QUOTE ]
Not all concepts in CoH can be realized with epic pools either. A rad/rad defender is pretty screwed. Or an illusion controller. A spines scrapper won't get some ultimate spine powers at the end of the game.
Ultimately, I think being given power from someone else is a much more rational explanation for these new powers at level 41 than just "You hit level 41, now your fire blaster can use electricity" or "You hit 41 and now, and only now, your scrapper has learned how to throw throwing stars even though Tsoo have been doing it since level 13." I would love if they adapted the "Patron" set-up for heroes and gave us a storyline or two that explain where we get these new epic powers and why they are important to our characters. Right now they aren't anymore important than the Fitness or Speed pool.
[/ QUOTE ]
I said at the time that Patron Powers were mentioned in last year's big CoV magazine article that I'd love it if CoH got Patron-esque options - but not at the expense of the current APP options. I don't see how the two have to be mutually exclusive in the same game. People want flexible post-40 power options now that they've had a taste in CoH. The genie is out of the bottle. Of course APPs don't completely satisfy every hero concept. No one is saying that APPs are perfect. They do, however, have a flexibility PPPs don't have - narratively and in respec terms. PPPs are not bad (though people might impulsively speak that haphazardly in the heat of the internet moment), but they are definitely not better than APPs. I hope that by the end of the year both games have both sets of options.
You say that there's a more rational explanation for post-40 powers now in CoV. No, there isn't. There's just less diversity in the rationales for post-40 powers. Just because a player may not have a website you can visit to read up on the rationale, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't interesting.
I think it's good that you highlight the virtues of PPPs, but just like some of the people who slag PPPs, you offer a distinct bias and seem reluctant to acknowledge that PPPs are a mixture of pros and cons.
I think you miss a rather important qualifier of the Villain PPP's -- they're optional.
You allude to it:
[ QUOTE ]
People want flexible post-40 power options now that they've had a taste in CoH.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd argue that the diversification options that APPs afford Heroes are that much more necessary. Hero ATs are substantially more purpose-oriented, so the APPs provide options that simply aren't otherwise possible for Heroes. Blasters without mez? Defender and Controller shields? Scrappers and tanks without ranged attacks? The APPs helped cover many balance issues ascribed to the Hero late-game, by giving everyone options they previously lacked.
Here's the thing with the Villain ATs -- they're all damage dealers. Even the most damage-lite AT, ostensibly Dominators, are probably still superior damage output compared to pre-Containment Controllers. I'd go so far as to argue that the Villain ATs were designed to be less team-dependent, and inherently more versatile than their closest hero counterparts.
So where does that leave us? Even before the announcement of the PPPs, I'd still been under the impression that an APP equivalent for Villains would be largely superfluous. Those ATs seem already designed with APP versatily largely built-in.
Heroes need their APPs to function more than it seems Villains will need their PPPs -- making the PPPs largely a matter of luxury.
[ QUOTE ]
While what you say is entirely possible, it might not be. Sure some Brute might go into the whole thing with the idea of taking Mako's power, and then using it against him, only to discover that as he gets further and further along in the story that option doesn't exist.
[/ QUOTE ]
That would make a great tragedy.
Some of the best stories have the protagonist lose, y'know.
And we are villains...
Trapped by one's own lust for power is a perfectly plausible and workable turn of events if what one is really interested in is story.
[ QUOTE ]
Mm. Not really, and I hope the devs are not as emotionally hyper-sensitive as you potray them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Clint, just because you read my posts as if they were being narratived by a screeching woman watching her baby get crushed by a bus doesn't mean that's how I wrote it.
Current Badge Hunter: Plot Device (Rad/Thermal/Dark) - 1,268 Xbox Live: Friggin Taser
King of Electricity, Lead Inmate running the Carl and Sons asylum, the "Man" behind the Establishment, Given Honor in Hat Form By Paragon City (Favorite Forum Poster 2006!), Master of Ceremonies of the Fair Use Law podcast
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's good that you highlight the virtues of PPPs, but just like some of the people who slag PPPs, you offer a distinct bias and seem reluctant to acknowledge that PPPs are a mixture of pros and cons.
[/ QUOTE ]
I sound biased only because I entered someone else's conversation, Clint.
Honestly, I have no allegiance on this one. I'm dealing with what we got. Am I in love with the idea of patron pools that can't be changed and are similiar across the ATs? Not too much. Some powers look cool. But they are just other powers for me. Am I angry that the devs would dare for me to bow down before a fictional character to get powers? Of course not. We do that everytime we train.
Would I protest wildly if they announced in I8 that heroes were getting patron pools and villains were getting APPs that are based on elements/powersets? Of course not. More choice is always better and we're not 100% sure that's not what they are going to do anyways. Then people can have the option of being part of the greater narrative by aligning themselves with the environment and storyline or have the choice to base their epic powers on their origin and powerchoices.
Current Badge Hunter: Plot Device (Rad/Thermal/Dark) - 1,268 Xbox Live: Friggin Taser
King of Electricity, Lead Inmate running the Carl and Sons asylum, the "Man" behind the Establishment, Given Honor in Hat Form By Paragon City (Favorite Forum Poster 2006!), Master of Ceremonies of the Fair Use Law podcast
[ QUOTE ]
I think you miss a rather important qualifier of the Villain PPP's -- they're optional.
[/ QUOTE ]
They're just as equivalently as optional as APPs in my opinion. You assert that heroes need their specialized post-40 choices much more than villains do. I don't know that that's true.
Anyway, what does making an optimized build have to do with thematic concerns? And because of a perceived lack of villain player need for them (PvPers might disagree), it's automatic that the pools should be non-respecable? I don't see how the two connect at all and your post didn't help.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mm. Not really, and I hope the devs are not as emotionally hyper-sensitive as you portray them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Clint, just because you read my posts as if they were being narratived by a screeching woman watching her baby get crushed by a bus doesn't mean that's how I wrote it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. Not how I read them at all. I can see now why you think everybody is 'screaming' at the devs. There's just a preponderance of screaming in your world, period.
/em turns on white noise generator
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I have no allegiance on this one. I'm dealing with what we got. Am I in love with the idea of patron pools that can't be changed and are similiar across the ATs? Not too much. Some powers look cool. But they are just other powers for me. Am I angry that the devs would dare for me to bow down before a fictional character to get powers? Of course not. We do that everytime we train.
Would I protest wildly if they announced in I8 that heroes were getting patron pools and villains were getting APPs that are based on elements/powersets? Of course not. More choice is always better and we're not 100% sure that's not what they are going to do anyways. Then people can have the option of being part of the greater narrative by aligning themselves with the environment and storyline or have the choice to base their epic powers on their origin and powerchoices.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough.
[ QUOTE ]
That would make a great tragedy.
Some of the best stories have the protagonist lose, y'know.
And we are villains...
Trapped by one's own lust for power is a perfectly plausible and workable turn of events if what one is really interested in is story.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I understand all this... I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make.
Some people are posting right now that they can fit PPPs into their character concept by saying that they aren't really joining Arachnos, but are instead saying they're sticking it to the man, and betraying their patrons, or giving them lip service, to receive their power so they can take them down later with it. That's all well and good, but then lets say that I7 does hit Test, and we discover that avenue isn't viable because of the way the story arc plays out (not saying it will, or it won't, it's just an example). Suddenly those people who were going to justify it like this can't, and start complaining. Meanwhile someone else says, "Neato, I like that idea, trapped by my own greed, here I come."
It works for some, and doesn't work for others. APPs however, don't really come with this pitfall attached. You take them, or you don't, and if you do take them you are free to come up with any story you like to have them. This might not necessarily be the case with PPPs though, because by their very nature they have a story constructed around them, and the player might not have any real control over it. We'll just have to wait and see.
[ QUOTE ]
They're just as equivalently as optional as APPs in my opinion. You assert that heroes need their specialized post-40 choices much more than villains do. I don't know that that's true.
[/ QUOTE ]
"Need" perhaps in the same manner as Stamina. A matter of semantic degree. But really, many Hero builds benefit greatly from their choice of APPs. Not all APPs are created equivalently -- note the popularity of Body Mastery for Scrappers, over say, Munitions.
However, we see some evidence -- prospective, peppered with rhetoric and not yet supported by testing, granted -- that Villain PPPs simply don't look as utile as Hero APPs. I'd argue that's by design -- Villain ATs, by my estimate, simply don't need the diversification options offered by Hero APPs.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, what does making an optimized build have to do with thematic concerns? And because of a perceived lack of villain player need for them (PvPers might disagree), it's automatic that the pools should be non-respecable? I don't see how the two connect at all and your post didn't help.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure it's perceived. All five Villain ATs are capable of greater basal damage output than the most damage-lite Heroes. They're mostly better suited to soloing, by virtue of that damage-oriented nature. Granted, many of the models indicate that damage-oriented Hero ATs are better suited for things like PvP, but that doesn't mitigate the point.
Furthermore, my point is that by virtue of not requiring the game mechanics of APPs, Villains simply aren't compelled to select PPPs, not in comparison to Heroes. In that case, PPPs become more optional -- not dictated by game mechanics, and instead become a matter of preference.
I think it becomes a case of progressive minorities, there. Quite a lot of players don't consider story for their own characters whatsoever. Of those that do, quite a lot have loose concepts that take up a paragraph or two. Of those with more fleshed out biographies, some will have PPP-compatible biographies already. Of those that don't, some can make the mental adjustment we just talked about. Of those that can't... there'll be a problem. But how many is that going to be by that point, really?
I understand it'll suck for those that fall into those categories, but it'll probably hit a lot less people than something like the global defense nerf did, and it's going to hit them in a way that is, all apologies, self-inflicted. Ignoring the idea of ignoring story text for a moment, for there to be a problem it has to be the case that not only is their pre-existing story incompatible with Arachnos and/or the Patrons but also that they have to be unwilling to adapt future progress of the story to the new reality and also unwilling to rewrite or retcon the character in any sort of meaningful way. I rewrote my energy blaster twice from level 1 to 38, once to change the nature and original purpose of his powersuit to accommodate an unexpected rule change, and once because I didn't like how part of the design was working out so I rewrote the background to accommodate a respec.
I understand people like their characters. Heck, Lord knows I've been [censored] over a couple. I quit for three months after I5. I just think it's important that people realize the source of the sadness in this thread isn't one-sided. It's two-sided: the direction the devs are taking on the one hand, and a certain level of stubborn rigidity on the other. Not meant as an insult. Just as an observation.
The bad idea isn't having PPPs, it's in giving players no choice on the matter.
I'm still not getting how the apologists for the Devs are rationalizing this [censored]. So far, I get this:
1: Wait and see. Already refuted as errant nonsense. We've already waited, we've already seen. There's nothing left to see, period. This is how it is, how it's going to be.
2: Conform or be cast out: nullify everything you've ever thought or written about your character: it doesn't matter, never mattered in the first place. Umm, and why are my hero characters not facing this ultimatum?
3: Stop whining and wait for I8 for a chance of more options: In a word: no. In a few more words: No, I'm tired of waiting and will wait no longer.
4: You don't have imagination. BS, plain and simple. If we didn't have imagination in the first place, this entire argument wouldn't exist.
So, we're gimped, those of us who will not conform. That's how it is, how it's going to be.
Cal2
Sure, no problem. As you're not likely to change your mind, and neither am I, then we can just agree to disagree. 
I don't like the PPPs at all really, both in implementatiom and concept, so I won't be taking them more than likely. Like the OP, I find the track taken by the Devs to be disappointing, and that is why I posted my agreement with him in this thread. Others will like the more structured environment, so for them they'll be happy. I just don't fit into that catagory, and I accept that.
[ QUOTE ]
2: Conform or be cast out: nullify everything you've ever thought or written about your character: it doesn't matter, never mattered in the first place.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps another way to put this would be "realize your character was not etched in bronze and that 'conform' is not a swear word".
[ QUOTE ]
I understand people like their characters. Heck, Lord knows I've been [censored] over a couple. I quit for three months after I5. I just think it's important that people realize the source of the sadness in this thread isn't one-sided. It's two-sided: the direction the devs are taking on the one hand, and a certain level of stubborn rigidity on the other. Not meant as an insult. Just as an observation.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone is being unreasonably stubborn about this. It's that I (we?) don't have anywhere to fall back to besides quitting, as only the devs have the ability to change it. It's a take it or leave it situation for me (and I think most of my villains will probably leave it, if I even bother to do the 40 game more than once). But the devs, who are no doubt still reading the feedback, can choose to alter the situation (even if it takes a couple issues for them to do it), and it seems that there are many who would like this reconsidered.
I can choose not to do any of the 40+ content, but I think that pretty much everyone can agree that choosing not to play the game is not a winning move (except in the case of global thermonuclear war).
[ QUOTE ]
Quite a lot of players don't consider story for their own characters whatsoever. Of those that do, quite a lot have loose concepts that take up a paragraph or two. Of those with more fleshed out biographies, some will have PPP-compatible biographies already. Of those that don't, some can make the mental adjustment we just talked about. Of those that can't... there'll be a problem. But how many is that going to be by that point, really?
[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of people don't write bios. More than a few like to matching elemental powers. Or matching mechanical foci powers. The PPPs cover a bit of that, but APPs cover power themes better - yet still not perfectly.
[ QUOTE ]
I understand people like their characters. Heck, Lord knows I've been [censored] over a couple. I quit for three months after I5. I just think it's important that people realize the source of the sadness in this thread isn't one-sided. It's two-sided: the direction the devs are taking on the one hand, and a certain level of stubborn rigidity on the other. Not meant as an insult. Just as an observation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough.
[ QUOTE ]
4: You don't have imagination. BS, plain and simple. If we didn't have imagination in the first place, this entire argument wouldn't exist.
[/ QUOTE ] It doesn't strike me so much as a lack of imagination, just a lack of flexibility. You refuse to bend in your creativity and come up with reasons (however convoluted) for characters to have any of the APPs. I honestly think, given some of the great character concepts out there that I've seen, most of you could easily come up with reasons to be taking the patron pools. You just don't want to.
MA Arcs: Yarmouth 1509 and 58812
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly think, given some of the great character concepts out there that I've seen, most of you could easily come up with reasons to be taking the patron pools. You just don't want to.
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that always the case? 
Dawnslayer on Virtue.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm debating the perceived limitations or lack thereof of imagination when it comes to roleplayers.
[/ QUOTE ]
As was I.