[ QUOTE ]
Well, so, after many twists and turns, we come full circle.
Which is to say it seems we all agree.
The game needs both, and it sounds like everyone agreed on that from the beginning, we just didn't like the sources and sometimes we didn't like the tone.
The next question is still the big one, which is how to improve the crossover and make what are (in my mind, anyway) 2 different games come closer to being one game we can all enjoy in its full length and breadth. Well, not "all," that's overstating. There are 10% on either side of the PvE / PvP issue that will never enjoy the other. But we need to start playing to the 80% in the middle.
[/ QUOTE ]
Allow for two builds. That would be quick and dirty method.
The more thoughtout methods would be some of the stuff T_L and Arcana have stated.
Though after 2+ years I think a lot of people would not mind if the quick and dirty method were implemented at this point.
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 ]
Well, so, after many twists and turns, we come full circle.
Which is to say it seems we all agree.
The game needs both, and it sounds like everyone agreed on that from the beginning, we just didn't like the sources and sometimes we didn't like the tone.
The next question is still the big one, which is how to improve the crossover and make what are (in my mind, anyway) 2 different games come closer to being one game we can all enjoy in its full length and breadth. Well, not "all," that's overstating. There are 10% on either side of the PvE / PvP issue that will never enjoy the other. But we need to start playing to the 80% in the middle.
[/ QUOTE ]
Word.
[ QUOTE ]
[EDIT] What I am trying to say is I love FPS PvP but can't get into PvP here. So statistics showing that millions of people play Counterstrike isn't going to convince me that more PvP is what this game needs.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is usually because of issues with the PvP implementation rather than MMO PvP not being a good thing. The gaming world has moved pretty significantly toward instanced combat with balanced teams, a step in the right direction and is much more in line with FPS PvP experiences. Fury, Guild Wars, and WoW have all made this leap and I believe this will continue as games like Huxley continue to push the boundaries of our arbitrary definitions.
[ QUOTE ]
PS: I am still hoping for some kind of 8v8 Hero vs Villain capture the flag type scenario. Am I the only one?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all, this would be an awesome addition. RV, I think, was somewhat inspired by CTF but ended up being more complex. Many other MMO's have this type of match already....
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, that explains why almost all of the population is running PvE content, and the PvP zones are almost empty most of the time.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I didn't have to level and farm for accolodes, I'd probably never PvE again. But I have to, so I spend more time pveing than pvping.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, so, after many twists and turns, we come full circle.
Which is to say it seems we all agree.
The game needs both, and it sounds like everyone agreed on that from the beginning, we just didn't like the sources and sometimes we didn't like the tone.
The next question is still the big one, which is how to improve the crossover and make what are (in my mind, anyway) 2 different games come closer to being one game we can all enjoy in its full length and breadth. Well, not "all," that's overstating. There are 10% on either side of the PvE / PvP issue that will never enjoy the other. But we need to start playing to the 80% in the middle.
[/ QUOTE ]
Allow for two builds. That would be quick and dirty method.
The more thoughtout methods would be some of the stuff T_L and Arcana have stated.
Though after 2+ years I think a lot of people would not mind if the quick and dirty method were implemented at this point.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, a two build system implemented _right now_ would be one of the best things the devs could do for PvP and its something that has most of the mechanisms in place to handle it. They would have to store the two builds, but I doubt database space is that much of an issue.
*Edit* this thread had done wonders for my post count but not helped me finish any of my work for some reason...bbl
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ QUOTE ]
Allow for two builds.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also I want to point out I would be wary of anything posted by MMOrgchart.
As has been stated several times in this thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
Including by me, with the caveat that the information my point was depending on was highly reliable because the data is publicly available as part of NCSoft's and Blizzard's SEC filings. While it may be difficult to get exact subscription numbers on say the number of subs in SWG, because SOE is ashamed of those numbers its not that hard to get numbers on WoW, CoH, L2, GW, and most "successful" games.
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Also I see MMOs and RTF and FPS as all different genres. You can't really lump all those statistics together because the reasons (and audience of) one plays an MMO pvp game is different than that of an FPS. I myself HATE FPS and RTFs with a passion. MMO pvp is what actually attracted me.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is one of the areas where the public data is weak, there is much better (private) information available that provides strong correlation between these groups but I hate to even bring it up because I can't share it.
[ QUOTE ]
Also these links to statistics do nothing to show that the idea that "most find pvp as having more replability" as nothing more than opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you dispute the concept that gamers can be treated as group, then we have to use logic.
We know that for the games that segregate PvP from PvE zones that the number of PvE zones is overwhelming in the favor of the PvE side of the equation. In CoX there are 4 PvP zones and the Arena (bases could be counted as well, but they aren't exclusively for PvP). There are 26 or 27 (IIRC) PvE zones on the CoH side and 8 more on the CoV side. The fact that the PvP zones get any degree of usage indicates a high correspondence with replay value.
I haven't done this kind of survey, but it would be interesting to record names of players and characters in the zones for a period of months and see what the reuse numbers were in this game. I can say, without any doubt, that the PvP zones do get more repeat use than any of the PvE zones in this game, part of that is due to the simple fact that there are fewer zones that fit into that category but another part is the fact that there isn't much point of going into Skyway once you're level 32. The same cannot be said of BB or SC.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting. Except you forget some things. Altitis. There isn't much point to go into skyway once you are 32, but your next alt might go there. Thats not guaranteed with BB or SC. Even less with BB, as BB is at a level that is EASILY leveled past, so the draw to even do missions in that zone may be gone. And if shivans weren't there I'd think it'd be used even less than any pve zone or SC or RV.
Also some missions specifically send you back to lower level zones. I know many a mission in the Hollows that are waaay after you have "graduated" out of that zone range.
Also seeing how there are new players everyday, I would argue that the usage between the pve zones and pvp zones is split fairly evenly with NEITHER showing more usage versus the other. Both sides have their usesless and/or nearly always empty zones (boomtown, shadow shard, RV, bloody bay if not for the shivans). And both sides have zones that are the most popular in the game (SC universally on every server, Atlas park). So I don't agree really with zone usage meaning PVP replay value. If we stripped all the pve toys out of bloddy and warburg, would it be used as much? So then the question is, is the replay value based on pure pvp or just pve toys? 
Which is why I think its dangerous to do a headcount and equate zone usage to pvp or pve preference.
I'll respectfully stop debating the stats with you as it is apparent you know some things that I don't want you having to defy the NDAs you are bound by, from revealing (those darn things really do cripple thoughtful discussion that people can learn from. 
)
However, I still stand by my point that I don't agree that an only pvp game can push an MMO to be successful without pve. Now Fury might (and honestly I hope it does) prove me wrong, however currently there is no game that can be used for evidence that points to the idea as nothing but opinion.
And you are right, I don't think gamers can be characterized as just one group. There are so many variables there it's not even funny. I strongly believe there ARE concreate differences between FPS, RTS, and MMO pvp audiences. And if not in general at least in THIS GAME's pvp audience. Remember, that you myself and others keep pointing out to the devs that coh's pvp engine is like nothing else out there. If RTS, FPS and MMO PVP audiences are all the same, then it flys in the face of this statement. If we would just be happy with coh pvp being just like any old RTS of FPS, what the hell are we still doing here?
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 ]
What matters is not direct numerical equality in PvP, but rather roughly equal opportunity for wins and losses. It matters less how badly you lose, as long as you have an equal chance to actually win.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry to cut out most of this post, but this statement stood out to me. This shows exactly why I believe Stalkers and Blasters are, in fact, balanced. Whenever my stalker duels a blaster, 90% of the time one of us dies in the first five seconds. (If they are particularly skilled and I can time the placates right, we can stalemate for a long time.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Ignoring the issue of placate mechanics for a moment, while this is not a balance-issue per se, one of the things that I think is problematic in PvP is the time frame of the combat. PvE is balanced around very rapid combat, and because there really isn't any PvP combat adjustments that attempt to alter that, PvP combat is intrinsicly designed around very fast combat also. This doesn't mean you can't have very long fights occasionally, but the average fight probably lasts just seconds before someone is dead or escaping. That makes it difficult to give PvP a tactical feel in my opinion: its over too quickly for tactical decisions to have any real chance to take strategic effect: a tactical decision has to have immediate reward or its likely to be a waste of time.
There are a couple of problems with slowing down PvP combat, though, although most are solvable. Rebalancing for a slower pace is actually not that difficult: it requires basic transform mathematics: calculate immortality lines for everyone, and then descale them. And actually, it really comes down to health, healing, damage and regeneration, and possibly endurance (everything else is transform-invariant under time). Slow down healing and lower damage, and you end up with fights that are exactly the same as now, but slower.
The real problem is travel powers: slower fights not only create tactical opportunities, it can make it impossible to kill anyone if everyone can escape combat. Two things would have to happen to allow for slower and more move-countermove combat: first, travel powers have to be somehow largely negated as major factors in determining PvP pace. Second, in its place, the game engine needs to have a better way to allow for range effects to affect combat, so that slow and lower magnitude movement can still have an effect on combat beyond the obvious - getting out of range. In essence, replace tactical high speed movement with tactical (relatively) low speed movement. This keeps combat more confined, and less jousty and hit and run: more dogfight, and less Red Baron.
How to do this, especially in the case of travel powers, is a bit sticky. There are two ways you can do it. First, you can give travel powers disadvantages in PvP. The devs were probably on the better track when they had flight have a tohit debuff. Each travel power could have an associated debuff that was irrelevant when actually travelling, but was a penalty when running travel during actual fighting. The problem is that its easy to overbuff a penalty away in teams, so this would have to be done very deftly, and probably requires also looking at stacking and accumulated buff mechanics (my #1 game mechanical pet peeve).
The other thing you can do is create more ways in which maximum effectiveness tends to automatically preclude travel, aka granite. Granite, in fact, is a really good example of a PvP-friendly combat stance-oriented power. Which is not to say its balanced or not balanced, but thats a question of numbers: its the mechanics of the power that make it PvP-friendly. It trades damage for defense, and when it makes you able to take more damage, it also makes you less able to run away from a competent set of attackers that bring enough damage to take you down (the exception, of course, is teleport, but that could be solved as well: give granite a very large self range debuff).
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
[No its not. Let me see if I can clarify this for you. Whether or not a person enjoys re-using any given type of content _is_ a completely subjective decision based on personal preferences. However, the _fact_ is that PvP content is more reusable by far more people than PvE content is not subjective, it can be demonstrated via statistical analysis.
[/ QUOTE ]
Based on what concrete, non-anecdotal data? Your "data" is nothing more or less than the opinions of others. Subjective opinions. You have no objective data upon which to base your opinion, Thor.
[ QUOTE ]
For most gamers (not all), PvP content has more replay value than PvE content.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have no data to support this. It is your opinion only.
Let me clarify: all your data says is that more players play games with heavy PvP content. Nothing in your data speaks to the reusability of that PvP content, just that more players are taking part of it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, that explains why almost all of the population is running PvE content, and the PvP zones are almost empty most of the time.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I didn't have to level and farm for accolodes, I'd probably never PvE again. But I have to, so I spend more time pveing than pvping.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll sign for the other side here. I really enjoy the interaction of a good team working together against the environment, even if I've played the content before. I am looking at PvP as an option for when good teams are unavailable, but so far I've found it can be as tedious as the PvE hunting grind, with less rewards. Not always, but at times.
I've compared the way I play this game and they way I approach other MMO's as follows: in other games (LotR Beta and pre order, for example) I am interested in the long term story line, the world the characters are placed in, and the overall mechanics of how to play the game. I choose a class I am most comfortable with and I play it through. Like non MMO games, I can stand to play the PvE a couple times through, but after that it's only a device to get to other content (PvP or some other 'endier' game stuff.) This is how some people here have described their CoX experience as well, and I can understand that.
I've found, for myself, the world is less of a draw than the characters themselves are. I can spend hours in the character creator and first few levels, even though I've done all of the content before, just so I can try out another concept or powerset.
See, the scrapper class in other games is pretty much the same no matter how many times you roll it. The only real choices I have are whether to use an axe or a sword, that kind of thing, and that's usually determined by loot drops and what is optimal in that game. There's a lot more difference between scrapper sets alone, not to mention the mixing and matching of primaries and secondaries, or trying out completely different AT's.
That is why, for me, CoH is an entirely different beast, and will hold my attention until such time that it is well and truely obsolete. And yes, I do plan on getting my LotR Champion to PvP levels fairly quickly, so that I can experience all that that game has to offer as well.
[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that both Counter Strike, StarCraft, Warcraft, BF, BF2, and a multitude of other "old" games.
Lets just look at CS since its the grand daddy of em all.
In 2002 there were over 30,000 populated Counter-Strike servers on line.
In 2004, GameSpy statistics showed over 85,000 players simultaneously playing Counter-Strike at any point in time.
in 2006, Steam regularly shows over 200,000 players for Counter-Strike at the same time (though this number includes some of the later releases as well).
According to statistics gathered by Valve's content-delivery platform, Steam, these players collectively contribute to over 6.177 billion minutes of playing time each month.
Thats a game that was released in 2000 (started as a mod back in 1999).
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone could successfully argue that competitive games are not popular. Multiplayer FPS and RTS games do have a great amount of replayability and popularity, but your statistics here are ignoring two major facts.
First, all of those games mentioned have healthy, strong MOD communities which constantly churn out new maps, weaponry, and options. None of them are remotely the same as they were the day they were released, and most of the modifications come from fans who donated their time to create/alter content.
Second, none of those games requires (to my knowledge) a monthly or hourly subscription fee. Ah, wait...the internet cafes in the asian market do charge an hourly rate and most players in those markets play via the cafes.
The MMO market is hugely expensive to develop for. This means a revenue stream of some sort has to be guaranteed for an MMO to be successful and in the American Market, the standard is the monthly subscription.
My opinion is that if players in the American market had to pay as much to play Counterstrike as they do to play say "WoW" there would be a vastly lower number of Counterstrike players.
Sony tried and failed to get a subscription based RTS launched. They launched, with severely underwhelming success, an FPS with a monthly subscription fee. I contend that the lack of success of both titles had as much to do with the required subscription as it did with any shortcomings in implementation. Planetside may have been the best game ever -- I personally would not know, I would *not* pay a monthly fee to play an FPS when I can play Counterstrike for free.
[ QUOTE ]
...
How to do this, especially in the case of travel powers, is a bit sticky. There are two ways you can do it. First, you can give travel powers disadvantages in PvP. The devs were probably on the better track when they had flight have a tohit debuff. Each travel power could have an associated debuff that was irrelevant when actually travelling, but was a penalty when running travel during actual fighting. The problem is that its easy to overbuff a penalty away in teams, so this would have to be done very deftly, and probably requires also looking at stacking and accumulated buff mechanics (my #1 game mechanical pet peeve).
...
[/ QUOTE ]
The trouble with this approach (and the trouble CoH devs ran into) is player perception. In order for something to be perceived as 'fun' it has to feel to the players like they are being enabled, rather than penalized. Especially now that people are used to powers working a certain way, it is that much harder to 'take something away' from the game, even if, in fact, you are giving the players something else in return(in this case a semi-subjective version of balance and potential for more fun in PvP.) It has to be an obvious gain to the players, and most game mechanics changes like this just aren't.
People play this game to feel super, so any way that is hindered will meet with general disapproval by most players, and will be percieved as a bad thing, regardless of the overarching, but less immediately evident, benefits. There have been way too many examples of that in the past.
********edit*************************
Cool... my first post as the first post after a red name.
Also... good points, Castle. I wanted to argue the point about subscription earlier but didn't see a real opportunity. I pick up and play Starwars Battlefront from time to time, but wouldn't have touched it if it were subscription... yet here I am with CoH month after month.
[ QUOTE ]
I, and I have every reason to believe Im a typical MMORPG player, have no interest in a FPS PVP game.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you think so 
Having said that, this entire game has been out of step with the mainstream of MMO's for quite sometime. Take a look at the pure MMO stats I compiled and you'll see that the exclusion of PvP for so long created an environment that was tailored for people who aren't the average MMO player. After all, the average MMO player doesn't play CoX at all.
[ QUOTE ]
Its the make and grow your character, and see the progression that makes MMORPGs addictive IMO.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is no doubt that PvE has value that is at least equal to PvP in terms of attraction to large numbers of players. Having said that its interesting to note that the term MMoRPG has almost completely fallen into disuse in the current generation of gamers and I think that says something about the state of gaming, they are MMO's these days.
[ QUOTE ]
However, where PVP comes in is what do you do after you do all of PVE? When you are max level, and done all the unique missions and the rest are repetitions, then what do you do? PVP, loot, skills/trades are all answers various games have used to try to keep interest after you "finish" the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
I won't disagree that this is how many PvE players get to PvP and it ties into the whole replability factor. Many many hardcore RP'ers are into PvP because its another way to use the character they've built and loved. The other side of the coin is the guy who comes from the FPS or RTS world, who is much less attached to the character but still passionate about the competition.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
I have to agree that part of what makes Counter Strike popular is that it is "cheap" to play. For those on a tight budget it is better than a single player game which have a definite end, but it has the same cost.
Oddly this would argue against competitiveness being a factor as much as the limits of money and technology.
The fact remains if you had a choice between a single player game of unlimited length/depth, a muliplayer coop game of unlimited length and a PvP game of unlimited length. People would still sign up for all 3. This is what makes people, people and developers nuts.
----------------------------
You can't please everyone, so lets concentrate on me.
[ QUOTE ]
Combat Stance were in the game to begin with to a degree. The non-stakcing armors from Tanker and Scrappers Defense sets. And to a lesser extend the End Cost for maintaining several toggles. It was OK conceptually and would have been fine for PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was in the game at a time when the game was massively unbalanced for PvE. Dark armors didn't stack, but Regeneration's toggles did, and so did SR's, I believe (though I didn't play one at the time, so I'm not 100% sure). Invuln's armors weren't mutually exclusive either, though at the time Unyielding made the player immobile, so perhaps that counts.
Dark also had the additional problem that its combat stance decisions were all degenerate: nearly everything did some combination of smash/lethal + something else, so 95% of the time running the "something else" armor instead of the smash/lethal armor was a bad decision. That meant that even taking that other armor was probably a bad decision. You'd be much better served taking the fighting pool and using Tough.
So while I might go along with the idea that these were *intended* to balance through combat stance, they certainly didn't do a good job of it.
Trying to balance through combat stance is a good idea, but IMHO combat stance should be something fluid, that is determined by the player moment-by-moment. In an MMORPG world where gaining powers is discrete and (to some extent) irreversable, combat stance represented by powers is, I tend to think, inherently flawed.
A long time ago I suggested the idea of "focus points" where you could boost certain powers by "focusing on them" during battles. This would be a much more fluid way of achieving a result similar in spirit to enhancements. I still think that would be a good idea for some MMO (though not, at this point, CoX in specific). (I also think it does a pretty good job of representing what actually happens in complex learning task situations in real life.)
Fascinating thread, by the way.
- Protea
And for a while things were cold,
They were scared down in their holes
The forest that once was green
Was colored black by those killing machines
[ QUOTE ]
I, and I have every reason to believe Im a typical MMORPG player, have no interest in a FPS PVP game.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you may be overlooking is that FPS players might be attracted to a particular MMO.
I came here with a moderately large contingent of RL friends who knew one another partially because of RL and partially because we played an FPS together (and competitively, at that).
Not everyone stayed, and not everyone who stayed plays regularly. Some of that is lack of interest in PvE, some of that is "gamer ADD" by which I mean to describe people who constantly hop to whatever is new and shiny. But some of us settled in and stayed.
When I play PvP FPS games, I play them for keeps. I also play team combat games, not "deathmatch", except as a skill honing exercise. Competitive deathmatch bores me. When I'm plaing on a team, I am not into casual play, because I don't like to lose. Playing a team game to win means playing often and intently, with organized practices, review of character/team builds, tactics and team interaction. You need to know everyone on your team, their strengths and their weaknesses.
I was usually in a position of authority but not leadership, such as a defense captain or lieutenant "clan" leader. I take positions of leadership or authority seriously - that means being at every practice, and contributing to the team.
That is draining. I did it for five years across two games. I came here and this MMO looked a fair bit like an FPS (albeit a pure PvE one). It was a nice outlier in the MMO world, with a close enough FPS feel to attract me away. And PvE is relaxing to me. There is no one to best. No one to train and practice against. Anyone I team with can be the most aweome or just "OK" and that'll work most times.
You see, I don't do MMOs. This is the exception for me. I will never play WoW. I will never play Lineage. I dabbled with GW and backed away because I saw it as "serious" PvP with all the things above I was burned out on. What I consider "real" PvP requires a time commitment I'm not up for any more.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
First, all of those games mentioned have healthy, strong MOD communities which constantly churn out new maps, weaponry, and options. None of them are remotely the same as they were the day they were released, and most of the modifications come from fans who donated their time to create/alter content.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have always wondered why MMORPGs did not try harder to develop ways for fan-based content to be published. Players on this forum have asked numerous times for the ability to design missions, and even given certain constraints to avoid "freebie" designs that gave too much reward for the risk, it sure seems like players would happily generate content for each other.
I fully realize that such a system would still have costs - developers would have to review content before publishing, which is no small task - but I still wonder if, ultimately, this would be a better use of the subscription dollars than doing all the content development centrally. (In a way, it's like the Cathedral vs. the Bazaar all over again.)
Any thoughts on that topic? Has Cryptic even theoretically toyed with opening that Pandora's box?
- Protea
And for a while things were cold,
They were scared down in their holes
The forest that once was green
Was colored black by those killing machines
Open CoH to the MOD community! We could have running and gunning on our TFs!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I, and I have every reason to believe Im a typical MMORPG player, have no interest in a FPS PVP game.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you may be overlooking is that FPS players might be attracted to a particular MMO.
I came here with a moderately large contingent of RL friends who knew one another partially because of RL and partially because we played an FPS together (and competitively, at that).
Not everyone stayed, and not everyone who stayed plays regularly. Some of that is lack of interest in PvE, some of that is "gamer ADD" by which I mean to describe people who constantly hop to whatever is new and shiny. But some of us settled in and stayed.
When I play PvP FPS games, I play them for keeps. I also play team combat games, not "deathmatch", except as a skill honing exercise. Competitive deathmatch bores me. When I'm plaing on a team, I am not into casual play, because I don't like to lose. Playing a team game to win means playing often and intently, with organized practices, review of character/team builds, tactics and team interaction. You need to know everyone on your team, their strengths and their weaknesses.
I was usually in a position of authority but not leadership, such as a defense captain or lieutenant "clan" leader. I take positions of leadership or authority seriously - that means being at every practice, and contributing to the team.
That is draining. I did it for five years across two games. I came here and this MMO looked a fair bit like an FPS (albeit a pure PvE one). It was a nice outlier in the MMO world, with a close enough FPS feel to attract me away. And PvE is relaxing to me. There is no one to best. No one to train and practice against. Anyone I team with can be the most aweome or just "OK" and that'll work most times.
You see, I don't do MMOs. This is the exception for me. I will never play WoW. I will never play Lineage. I dabbled with GW and backed away because I saw it as "serious" PvP with all the things above I was burned out on. What I consider "real" PvP requires a time commitment I'm not up for any more.
[/ QUOTE ]
And thus a real life example of why I think there are variances with fpsers, rtsers, mmo pvpers, and mmo pvpers. Trying to lump them into one group misses many nuances.
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 ]
First, all of those games mentioned have healthy, strong MOD communities which constantly churn out new maps, weaponry, and options. None of them are remotely the same as they were the day they were released, and most of the modifications come from fans who donated their time to create/alter content.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have always wondered why MMORPGs did not try harder to develop ways for fan-based content to be published. Players on this forum have asked numerous times for the ability to design missions, and even given certain constraints to avoid "freebie" designs that gave too much reward for the risk, it sure seems like players would happily generate content for each other.
I fully realize that such a system would still have costs - developers would have to review content before publishing, which is no small task - but I still wonder if, ultimately, this would be a better use of the subscription dollars than doing all the content development centrally. (In a way, it's like the Cathedral vs. the Bazaar all over again.)
Any thoughts on that topic? Has Cryptic even theoretically toyed with opening that Pandora's box?
- Protea
[/ QUOTE ]
I know quite a few people who would love to tinker with the game engine and come up with some interesting stuff. Especially for the shadow shard.
Back when i used to play single player computer games (stopped ever since coh started consuming my time) Neverwinter Nights was one of the games I followed. Let me tell you, the modding community for that game was off the wall!!!! The stuff they came up with was amazing. So amazing that the publisher actually made some of them into modules that were polished up and re-sold!
Damn good game NN was/is. I'm pretty sure the modding community is also still going strong.
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 ]
First, all of those games mentioned have healthy, strong MOD communities which constantly churn out new maps, weaponry, and options. None of them are remotely the same as they were the day they were released, and most of the modifications come from fans who donated their time to create/alter content.
Second, none of those games requires (to my knowledge) a monthly or hourly subscription fee. Ah, wait...the internet cafes in the asian market do charge an hourly rate and most players in those markets play via the cafes.
The MMO market is hugely expensive to develop for. This means a revenue stream of some sort has to be guaranteed for an MMO to be successful and in the American Market, the standard is the monthly subscription.
My opinion is that if players in the American market had to pay as much to play Counterstrike as they do to play say "WoW" there would be a vastly lower number of Counterstrike players.
Sony tried and failed to get a subscription based RTS launched. They launched, with severely underwhelming success, an FPS with a monthly subscription fee. I contend that the lack of success of both titles had as much to do with the required subscription as it did with any shortcomings in implementation. Planetside may have been the best game ever -- I personally would not know, I would *not* pay a monthly fee to play an FPS when I can play Counterstrike for free.
[/ QUOTE ]
Coming directly from Half-Life2(Counterstrike) before CoX the deathmatches added quite a bit of life to the game after you beat the game. The mods and all of the custom maps are great. Being able to pick the type of deathmatch is also a big appeal. I prefer the sniper maps as opposed to an attrition map and who died the least. I still burned out on the game after a few months. MMO's never appealed to me especially with a monthly fee. Why would I continually pay to play a game when I can jump into a deathmatch at anytime for free? If I had to pay extra for the deathmatch I would never play it. I would like to see the PVP side move a little faster. The recovery period after you die is too long. With a FPS, you die and boom you back right away. Yes, you still have to run arould getting weapons and ammo again, but going to the hospital, resting, setting up, and traveling back just seems to take too long.
However, when I tried CoV and found my inner mastermind and was hooked.
P.S. I would love to see a SDK and player mods & custom maps on a seperate sandbox server.
Poison Pill
[ QUOTE ]
Planetside may have been the best game ever -- I personally would not know, I would *not* pay a monthly fee to play an FPS when I can play Counterstrike for free.
[/ QUOTE ]
Planetside got a LOT of things right. Unfortunately, the expansions they came out with were unpopular, game-breaking (or at least bending), or both. The addition of BFRs to the game (massive robots, I'll let you figure out what the acronym means) ended up driving away a lot of the long-time players, although eventually I think they did manage to balance them reasonably well in the game. Other problems were introduced when they merged multiple servers (realms) into one and decided to let players have characters of more than one empire on the same server, like unbalanced empire populations (it was easy join the "winning side" if you could have multiple characters of different empires) and "spies". Despite all that, though, in terms of the fundamental implementation of a MMOFPS, they nailed it pretty well.
What Planetside offers over a transient FPS like Counterstrike are, in part, (a) Longer-term objectives that focused on further than the next 5, 10, or even 60 minutes, (b) much larger-scale fighting (c) the evolution of higher-level strategic planning that results from A and B. Just like getting that next level in CoH, taking control of a Base or Continent in Planetside gave you that feeling of accomplishment that you wouldn't get from just playing Counterstrike for the same amount of time (even if you know your side is going to lose the base by the same time tomorrow).
If you're really curious, they do (did?) offer a more-or-less permanent free trial - called "Planetside Reserves" - where you can play for free, but you can only get up to Battle Rank 6 (out of 25). Still, that's high enough to try most stuff and get a feel for the game.
DS
Not responding to the thread as a whole, but responding to this quote from Castle:
"First, all of those games mentioned have healthy, strong MOD communities which constantly churn out new maps, weaponry, and options. None of them are remotely the same as they were the day they were released, and most of the modifications come from fans who donated their time to create/alter content. "
Could you please, PLEASE, look into make moddable content in CoH/V? I've requested this several times and I know there were many others doing the same.
I remember seeing the first mods of CoH skins, primarily weapons and later capes, and thought, that's very nice.
It seems to me that the difference here, is that you would want some review board before 'officially' permitting a mod. As far as i know, people can still mod the game on the client side, but it would be nicer if you let the user community help out some with the 'content' side of the game.
As for missions, make all user mod missions be timed in case someone sneaks in a really nice PL gimmick or something. Or just allow people to submit creative mission plot ideas, along with mission text, etc. Give us a template that includes all the required text (things the contact says to give the mission, while still in the mission, after the mission, things npcs say in mission, clue text, etc.). So, even if you won't open up a tool to build missions, we could still add content to generic mission maps, just changing text. Of course, making maps would be very fun for some of our very creative players out there.
So some of the most obvious things that players could probably skin are costumes, faces, chest patterns, base items, weapons, capes, sounds. Then maybe you could permit missions, custom objects (of no value, just for placement in msisions for example, like the banners in the Freaklympics mission), maybe even zone-level npc dialog.
PLEASE
I think bases are/were a step toward that Pandora's Box.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
also I want to point out I would be wary of anything posted by MMOrgchart.
As has been stated several times in this thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
Including by me, with the caveat that the information my point was depending on was highly reliable because the data is publicly available as part of NCSoft's and Blizzard's SEC filings. While it may be difficult to get exact subscription numbers on say the number of subs in SWG, because SOE is ashamed of those numbers its not that hard to get numbers on WoW, CoH, L2, GW, and most "successful" games.
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Also I see MMOs and RTF and FPS as all different genres. You can't really lump all those statistics together because the reasons (and audience of) one plays an MMO pvp game is different than that of an FPS. I myself HATE FPS and RTFs with a passion. MMO pvp is what actually attracted me.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is one of the areas where the public data is weak, there is much better (private) information available that provides strong correlation between these groups but I hate to even bring it up because I can't share it.
[ QUOTE ]
Also these links to statistics do nothing to show that the idea that "most find pvp as having more replability" as nothing more than opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you dispute the concept that gamers can be treated as group, then we have to use logic.
We know that for the games that segregate PvP from PvE zones that the number of PvE zones is overwhelming in the favor of the PvE side of the equation. In CoX there are 4 PvP zones and the Arena (bases could be counted as well, but they aren't exclusively for PvP). There are 26 or 27 (IIRC) PvE zones on the CoH side and 8 more on the CoV side. The fact that the PvP zones get any degree of usage indicates a high correspondence with replay value.
I haven't done this kind of survey, but it would be interesting to record names of players and characters in the zones for a period of months and see what the reuse numbers were in this game. I can say, without any doubt, that the PvP zones do get more repeat use than any of the PvE zones in this game, part of that is due to the simple fact that there are fewer zones that fit into that category but another part is the fact that there isn't much point of going into Skyway once you're level 32. The same cannot be said of BB or SC.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends