Emmert on Lessons Learned From City of Heroes
By
Aeoleon,
Posted on: 2006-11-01 14:55 in Base Construction
FYI, there's a huge thread on that quote already.
Where?
Dasher
HELP SAVE THIS GAME!
If we can save this game, I promise I will never complain about Travel Power Suppression again! You have my word on it!
"The customer is always right."
Sorry, I didn't see another thread on this topic, and since I was at the Serious Games Summit earlier this week, I thought I should share. Cheers.
CapAp
I didnt see it either, anyway
-Honestly its news to me that players hate the SG Bases, I dont think I have ran into anyone who hates them, and to be honest, if anything, any complaints tend to be along different lines.
-Not enough functionality, people seem to like the existing functionality , but generally would like more, be it machines that dispense inspirations other than greens, or whatever. Also, people may have more fun if some of the non-active items were more interactive, example, a player clicks on a chair, their toon automatically does an emote of them sitting in the chair.
-Base Raids, this may have been what he has been referring to, people tend to be either solid base raids or solid anti-base raids
-Rent/ Prestige, now this aspect people do tend to dislike, I think most people understand about earning prestige to get stuff, although the prices are sometimes a bit much, but the rent aspect is what gets people turned off on bases, a few points here, the Avengers, X-Men, JLA, Titans, etc., generally speaking while its not mentioned too often, either the government, some foundation, or a wealthy member funds/ donates their HQs, and in case of some of the JLAs HQs such as the sattilites and the moonbase, its was a non issue.
-Simple suggestion here, which might help out small groups
-SG Missions where the SG performs some favor for either Arachnos or Longbow, in return for a base item. For example a hero SG can perform some mission for Longbow, and in return they will give the SG a teleporter unit. Sort of the same functionality as the newspaper mish, with the difficulty of the item affecting the difficulty of the mission.
-A second SG TF/SF, Arachnos/Longbow or some other party, agrees to fund the SG( pay the rent), if they complete some sort of TF/SF for them, or alternatively theyll pay a months rent in return for doing 1-5 missions for them.
Below is an appropriate quote from ChaseArcanum on this subject, from the other thread linked below...
Good summary, but in summary, it misses that Jack DOES recognize some of the other complaints here. I got to hear it firsthand, and it's intesting that some of the things that struck me didn't even make the article, whereas things I ignored were focal points.
He notes that people would prefer to decorate their own stuff, not contribute to allow someone else to decorate. As someone else mentioned, in a SG of 80, maybe 1-2 are base decorators.
He seemed to miss the point on taxation- or just didn't make it part of the discussion (this wasn't a comprehensive analysis, after all) but he really did allude to many of the issues that the "proof that Jack knows jack" commenters are [censored] about.
Still, some things he DIDN'T touch on:
When bases came out, they were envisioned as a "PvP thing" (go back and look- Posi even referenced that they were primarily for IOP's and base raids (the strategic element of PvP).
That was a BIG part of every friggin part of bases, but that's the part that's only NOW (after many interested in such a feature is likely long gone) entering the game... still with issues
With that in mind:
If they gave bases (A PvP element) significant gameplay advantages then the PvE crowd would be rightfully torqued off. Can't say I blame em.
The devs need to decide whether bases are PvP-centric, PvE-centric, or useful for both. They need to bring the investment on par with the reward, and acknowledge that an 80 CHARACTER SG may be less than a dozen PLAYERS, and scale bases accordingly.
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat....&PHPSESSID=
[ QUOTE ]
acknowledge that an 80 CHARACTER SG may be less than a dozen PLAYERS, and scale bases accordingly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your conclusion.
Instead of adapting bases to the current state of SGs, I think SGs should be reexamined so they can become the collections of 75 *players* that they were originally envisioned to be.
Actually, the PvP aspect of bases won't be around until at least I8, probably later. Apparently problems with the IoP trial have pushed it off for yet another issue.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
acknowledge that an 80 CHARACTER SG may be less than a dozen PLAYERS, and scale bases accordingly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your conclusion.
Instead of adapting bases to the current state of SGs, I think SGs should be reexamined so they can become the collections of 75 *players* that they were originally envisioned to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that in reality more average sized sgs are a dozen or so people with multiple characters. If it really were reorganized in a way in which you could only put one character per account, I think SGs would be worse off. This is a game of alts. It's not really realistic to expect a person to only have one sg and not allow them to bring the other alts they play into it. Most people at least play two other alternate characters a week.
You're never going to get 75 dedicated players who don't play alts. And if you're playing an alt that's not allowed to be in your main's sg, your main's sg is losing that prestige to the other sgs you play in with your alts.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the PvP aspect of bases won't be around until at least I9 , probably later. Apparently problems with the IoP trial have pushed it off for yet another issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fixed.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
acknowledge that an 80 CHARACTER SG may be less than a dozen PLAYERS, and scale bases accordingly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your conclusion.
Instead of adapting bases to the current state of SGs, I think SGs should be reexamined so they can become the collections of 75 *players* that they were originally envisioned to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's no good. That just keeps the rich SGs rich and the poor SGs poor.
I know of several SGs who have all 75 slots filled by a couple donzen friends and all their alts. That's how they want it, that's how they like it, and there is no reason to impose sanctions on them simply because they choose to use the tools given them - and which they pay for - to enrich their game experience in a way not in line with the preferences of others, especially including the designer.
"But I don't WANT the party to go down THAT hallway! I designed this dungeon so they would have to see all the cool stuff I did by going down the STAIRS!!! I know, I'll have the roof cave in! Heh-heh, heh-heh, that'll show 'em who's boss!!!"
Right now our own SG base is used for storage and Telepads. If the CoP/IoP Experience is not enjoyable, we'll rip out the Vault and go back to that.
But the current system of paying a fortune in "non-money" Prestige and continuing to pay, and pay, and pay is absurd.
"Rent" is essentially "tax", and it's a basic principle of economics that higher taxes suppress investment, lower taxes encourage incentive. In other words, if you want to encourage people to do something, you make it easy or pleasant for them to do it, not unpleasant more difficult.
The obvious fix here is to come out and say "You know what gang? We messed up on this whole Prestige thing, so we're going to get rid of it entirely and let you spend Influence on the bases; and no more rent. Play around with the Bases, have fun, and we'll work on adding cool in-game content to the Bases in future Issues."
But this confronts the core problem with everythiong in CoH/CoV.
It is obvious after reading Emmert's speech that he is one of those people who cannot tolerate criticism - witness what happens on these very boards - because he simply cannot entertain the notion that anyone else can be right once he has made up his mind about something.
Any time some change was poorly received or flat out didn't work, he maintains it was because "the players didn't get it" and not because the change was flawed in conception or implementation.
Now THAT is a problem with perceiving reality, and it's not the players' problem, but the designer's.
Okay, so a cloistered academic mentality might an acceptable personality quirk in an ivory tower academic, or if you're Stephen Hawking, but it is a disaster in someone running a company.
Because believe me, States, and I say this with no offense intended... you ain't no Stephen Hawking.
Dasher
"None of us is as smart as we'd like to think we are. More important, nobody else is as stupid as we'd like to believe they are."
HELP SAVE THIS GAME!
If we can save this game, I promise I will never complain about Travel Power Suppression again! You have my word on it!
"The customer is always right."
I think the idea would be more along the lines of the proposed "Global" SG list Posi has hinted at, where a person can put all of their toons into one SG if they choose, but only actually occupy one "slot" as far as the game is concerned, seeing as how only one of those characters can be on at a time. You could still belong to multiple SGs if you wanted, but you could also have all of your characters contributing to the same sg at the same time as well. This would benefit pretty much everyone - the small sgs would be able to maintain all their characters in one place, and larger sgs would be able to allow all their members in the same sg without having to branch out in 8 directions and do more clerical work to keep things focused than a lot of RL jobs. It's true that smaller sgs shouldn't be punished for preferring a tightly knit, small group, but larger sgs shouldn't be punished for having a large, active playerbase either.
-M
Marut, 50 FF/Rad/Power Defender - Champion
Leader of The Earthguard
Leader of The Galactic Empire
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
acknowledge that an 80 CHARACTER SG may be less than a dozen PLAYERS, and scale bases accordingly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your conclusion.
Instead of adapting bases to the current state of SGs, I think SGs should be reexamined so they can become the collections of 75 *players* that they were originally envisioned to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that in reality more average sized sgs are a dozen or so people with multiple characters. If it really were reorganized in a way in which you could only put one character per account, I think SGs would be worse off. This is a game of alts. It's not really realistic to expect a person to only have one sg and not allow them to bring the other alts they play into it. Most people at least play two other alternate characters a week.
You're never going to get 75 dedicated players who don't play alts. And if you're playing an alt that's not allowed to be in your main's sg, your main's sg is losing that prestige to the other sgs you play in with your alts.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's plenty of talk around about expanding rosters to hold 75 Globals.
I wouldn't want a 1-char-per-account limit on a roster. No way. Never said anything like that. Never said to limit alts.
[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea would be more along the lines of the proposed "Global" SG list Posi has hinted at, where a person can put all of their toons into one SG if they choose, but only actually occupy one "slot" as far as the game is concerned, seeing as how only one of those characters can be on at a time. You could still belong to multiple SGs if you wanted, but you could also have all of your characters contributing to the same sg at the same time as well. This would benefit pretty much everyone - the small sgs would be able to maintain all their characters in one place, and larger sgs would be able to allow all their members in the same sg without having to branch out in 8 directions and do more clerical work to keep things focused than a lot of RL jobs. It's true that smaller sgs shouldn't be punished for preferring a tightly knit, small group, but larger sgs shouldn't be punished for having a large, active playerbase either.
-M
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah ok! If this is what was referred to then I'm for it. But then there is another problem I just thought with this. What if that "account" that has 12 characters as part of the SG decides to leave? What happens to presitge that those 12 characters earned? What if those 12 chracters on that "account SG slot" had earned 100K each? Or what if that account turns out to be an [censored] who no one in the sg likes and they demand that you boot em. (or even if a majority demands that you boot em?) Do you keep them to keep the prestige while annoying your sg, or do you let them go and loose out on 12 * 100K prestige?
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
acknowledge that an 80 CHARACTER SG may be less than a dozen PLAYERS, and scale bases accordingly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your conclusion.
Instead of adapting bases to the current state of SGs, I think SGs should be reexamined so they can become the collections of 75 *players* that they were originally envisioned to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that in reality more average sized sgs are a dozen or so people with multiple characters. If it really were reorganized in a way in which you could only put one character per account, I think SGs would be worse off. This is a game of alts. It's not really realistic to expect a person to only have one sg and not allow them to bring the other alts they play into it. Most people at least play two other alternate characters a week.
You're never going to get 75 dedicated players who don't play alts. And if you're playing an alt that's not allowed to be in your main's sg, your main's sg is losing that prestige to the other sgs you play in with your alts.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's plenty of talk around about expanding rosters to hold 75 Globals.
I wouldn't want a 1-char-per-account limit on a roster. No way. Never said anything like that. Never said to limit alts.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah someone else explained it better. I understand what you were tyring to say now.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea would be more along the lines of the proposed "Global" SG list Posi has hinted at, where a person can put all of their toons into one SG if they choose, but only actually occupy one "slot" as far as the game is concerned, seeing as how only one of those characters can be on at a time. You could still belong to multiple SGs if you wanted, but you could also have all of your characters contributing to the same sg at the same time as well. This would benefit pretty much everyone - the small sgs would be able to maintain all their characters in one place, and larger sgs would be able to allow all their members in the same sg without having to branch out in 8 directions and do more clerical work to keep things focused than a lot of RL jobs. It's true that smaller sgs shouldn't be punished for preferring a tightly knit, small group, but larger sgs shouldn't be punished for having a large, active playerbase either.
-M
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah ok! If this is what was referred to then I'm for it. But then there is another problem I just thought with this. What if that "account" that has 12 characters as part of the SG decides to leave? What happens to presitge that those 12 characters earned? What if those 12 chracters on that "account SG slot" had earned 100K each? Or what if that account turns out to be an [censored] who no one in the sg likes and they demand that you boot em. (or even if a majority demands that you boot em?) Do you keep them to keep the prestige while annoying your sg, or do you let them go and loose out on 12 * 100K prestige?
[/ QUOTE ]
Er... when you kick someone you do not lose the prestige that they have earned.
- J
[ QUOTE ]
I know of several SGs who have all 75 slots filled by a couple donzen friends and all their alts. That's how they want it, that's how they like it, and there is no reason to impose sanctions on them simply because they choose to use the tools given them - and which they pay for - to enrich their game experience in a way not in line with the preferences of others, especially including the designer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me once again clear this up so you're not ranting about something I didn't say.
You would not have to change how many alts people use!!!
If everyone wants many alts in a SG, then the system needs to adapt to the way people play it. Change the system, don't try to force different behavior.
As it currently stands, SGs are not as active as they were expected to be. The Devs have said as much, and gave Prestige boosts. I think that's because hte Devs never expected SGs to be full of Alts.
So without changing the way people play, what's the solution? Clearly, you spell out the problems of one possible solution in your post. There are 2 other ways to adjust SGs to account for Alts...
Accept that SGs are smaller and scale down the system. Lower costs, bump up Prestige. As I've said in another post here, I don't like this scaledown idea, it's losing sight of the large group features the Devs tried to give us.
The best option in my opinion is to allow SGs to account for alt enrollment. Maybe expand to 300 roster spots and just balance it by the odds of never having more than 50 members on at once. Or change from 75 Chars to 75 Globals. or something along those lines. If you do that, you'll see more people online in any given SG at one time, and you'll see more Prestige, and be able to upgrade faster, and have more SG events happening, and so on. Players would not have to change, their friends lists would just get larger.
that better for you?
Couldn't they just change the rent system to active items in the base like teleporters, IoP's and the like rather than the current system?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea would be more along the lines of the proposed "Global" SG list Posi has hinted at, where a person can put all of their toons into one SG if they choose, but only actually occupy one "slot" as far as the game is concerned, seeing as how only one of those characters can be on at a time. You could still belong to multiple SGs if you wanted, but you could also have all of your characters contributing to the same sg at the same time as well. This would benefit pretty much everyone - the small sgs would be able to maintain all their characters in one place, and larger sgs would be able to allow all their members in the same sg without having to branch out in 8 directions and do more clerical work to keep things focused than a lot of RL jobs. It's true that smaller sgs shouldn't be punished for preferring a tightly knit, small group, but larger sgs shouldn't be punished for having a large, active playerbase either.
-M
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah ok! If this is what was referred to then I'm for it. But then there is another problem I just thought with this. What if that "account" that has 12 characters as part of the SG decides to leave? What happens to presitge that those 12 characters earned? What if those 12 chracters on that "account SG slot" had earned 100K each? Or what if that account turns out to be an [censored] who no one in the sg likes and they demand that you boot em. (or even if a majority demands that you boot em?) Do you keep them to keep the prestige while annoying your sg, or do you let them go and loose out on 12 * 100K prestige?
[/ QUOTE ]
Er... when you kick someone you do not lose the prestige that they have earned.
- J
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh!!! I was under the impression you did. I stand corrected.
Shows you I've never kicked anyone before. 
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Jack was never exactly in tune with City players, at least after launch. Before then, I have no idea ... wasn't in beta. Posi seems to care a lot more about what we want than Jack, who focused on what he personally enjoyed. The latter point is nearly indisputable.
The article was interesting on the subject of bases, though. I had never thought of the design as being sort of "collectively individual," but that explains the whole "Add Personal Item" concept. They made a few mistakes, though. Lots of people, maybe even a majority, don't care at all about base design. I didn't until I inherited ownership of two of them. Although the systems aren't exactly complicated, it's formulas and junk that just doesn't interest a big segment of the City population (just like PvP raiding, actually).
Then there's pricing. Fabrication costs salvage and placement costs prestige, so sg leaders tend to keep base permissions as tight as they can. Base construction is kind of a tight thing. If too many people drop rooms and objects, the result can get incoherent and dysfunctional very quickly. F.ex, my bases have zero decorative rooms; none. Another guy wants a big meeting hall with a huge conference table, though ... just to have it. Never mind it consumes footprint, serves no functional purpose, and we'd never meet in it. We have different priorities.
Good in theory, not so much in reality.
Please try MA arc ID 351455, "Shard Stories: Scavenger's Hunt." Originally created for the Dr. Aeon contest, it explores the wild potential of one of the City's most concept-rich but content-poor settings: the Shadow Shard.
[ QUOTE ]
-Simple suggestion here, which might help out small groups
-SG Missions where the SG performs some favor for either Arachnos or Longbow, in return for a base item. For example a hero SG can perform some mission for Longbow, and in return they will give the SG a teleporter unit. Sort of the same functionality as the newspaper mish, with the difficulty of the item affecting the difficulty of the mission.
-A second SG TF/SF, Arachnos/Longbow or some other party, agrees to fund the SG( pay the rent), if they complete some sort of TF/SF for them, or alternatively theyll pay a months rent in return for doing 1-5 missions for them.
[/ QUOTE ]
signed stars on top!
I love the idea.
[color=gold][b][size=5]♪ Sometimes you feel like a Tank, Sometimes you don't! ♪[/size][/color][/b]
[url=http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=114726][color=black][b][size=5]Moon [color=red]Hazard [color=black]Zone![/size][/color][/color][/color][/b][/url]
[ QUOTE ]
F.ex, my bases have zero decorative rooms; none. Another guy wants a big meeting hall with a huge conference table, though ... just to have it. Never mind it consumes footprint, serves no functional purpose, and we'd never meet in it. We have different priorities.
Good in theory, not so much in reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. When I kinda inherited a base (cause no one else stepped up to the plate when the SG leaders went on to other MMOs) I had to figure out all kinds of weird stuff, and chat with leaders of other SGs.
Hm, Door won't place. Why? Doh! Someone (we're close friends, so virtually everyone has an alt that is rank 5 and can edit anything about the base) filled the ceilings with track lighting!
So, first thing I did was to clear out everything that wasn't functional.
Next, I played around until I understood where my power and control came from, etc.
I moved stuff around, redid rooms until I maximized the number of doorways crisscrossing the base.
I learned how to, for teleport rooms, raise our Tech Porters up 2 floor levels with 0 ceiling, and place the beacons BENEATH each Porter so there was no question which Porter the beacons applied to.
And then I went about reforming our workshop, adding a 2nd workshop so we had enough room for all the new storage items, etc.
Only later, as our SG is somewhere in the 8 to 10 million prestige range (103k rent or so, which is what, around 1.7% of the total?) and we moved, with issue 7, to SIX telepads instead of three, did I finally say, "hey Art Boy, there's nothing left to spend prestige on. Go wild with sg logos, base tables, and all that nonfunctional stuff. We're earning 300-500k+ in a month and only paying 100k rent on an 8x12 plot filled to the brim with mission computer, raid porter, etc."
If we were starting from scratch, I'd build a workshop or oversight center, whatever lets me place Storage Racks for Enh, Salvage and Insps.
Then I'd start thinking Workbench/Oversight Center and a Porter to Talos and Atlas.
Anything more is gravy.
I almost wish there were two prestige totals:
Functional Prestige.
Decorative Prestige.
So if you have 100k prestige, you can buy 100k of Functional AND 100k of Decorative.
Your base grows 2x as fast with the proviso that your Functional items can never be more than your prestige total, but you might be able to quickly afford a 12x12 base of which only 8x12 is functional or somesuch.
I tend to decorate rooms while saving up for other stuff. Everyone seems to understand that the banners and such will disappear in favor of something functional. Not too much time goes into this, just enough to give the base a little life. This accomplishes the following...
1. the illusion that we're broke and need to work harder for more prestige or new recruits. ;-)
2. hides money that could look like it's available for rent. (You'd be surprised how many people ask why we're not paying rent. a lot easier to answer "we're broke" than to explain the rent system.)
3. gives an excuse to stop and re-decorate often. this usually drums up a few new ideas. also acts as somewhat of a poll - where I hear "hey, where did that cool decoration go?" I know it's something popular that should find its way back into the base.
[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea would be more along the lines of the proposed "Global" SG list Posi has hinted at, where a person can put all of their toons into one SG if they choose, but only actually occupy one "slot" as far as the game is concerned, seeing as how only one of those characters can be on at a time. You could still belong to multiple SGs if you wanted, but you could also have all of your characters contributing to the same sg at the same time as well. This would benefit pretty much everyone - the small sgs would be able to maintain all their characters in one place, and larger sgs would be able to allow all their members in the same sg without having to branch out in 8 directions and do more clerical work to keep things focused than a lot of RL jobs. It's true that smaller sgs shouldn't be punished for preferring a tightly knit, small group, but larger sgs shouldn't be punished for having a large, active playerbase either.
-M
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
I just hope they do it right, in one aspect:
Add a column that also lists a players global address in the sglist.
Hell, even if they never get the 75 person cap "fixed", I'll still love to see that added.
Chief Hamster of the Fist of Justice / Shadows of Victory
Victory Server: Join Victory Forum for team forming and general game chat and IRC Chat: irc.hashmark.net #victory for offline chatting.
Rock, rock on Hamster.
I posted this in the General CoH Discussion, but I thought I should post it here too as Jack Emmert addressed his thoughts on the Base Design feature for CoH/CoV and why "... players hated it." It makes for interesting reading.
Here is a link to Jack Emmert's keynote speech at the Serious Games Summit.
http://www.seriousgamessource.com/item.php?story=11496
CapAp