[ QUOTE ]
I think bases are/were a step toward that Pandora's Box.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I'm also willing to roll the dice to give players more control over what they'd like to see...
Open the box... =)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think bases are/were a step toward that Pandora's Box.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I'm also willing to roll the dice to give players more control over what they'd like to see...
Open the box... =)
[/ QUOTE ]
Too many potential problems.
Mods work for FPS's and games like NN because the world of that mod exists only on that single, small server. The benefits, no matter how hard or easy to obtain, don't go elsewhere. (Well, not easily).
On an MMO, that can quickly cause trouble with overall game balance or population density. Do you allow player-created content to mix in the mainstream? How do you control "Monty Hall" type maps, or maps built explicitly for farming or power-leveling? If you restrict player-created content to a sandbox, how do you get characters there? Who runs/supports those servers (and the related back-end needs)?
Where I think player-content might work is Arena maps. That IS a true sandbox with already established rules about how it works. That would basically bring in from most FPS games the custom map feature. Now, controlling the quantity, quality and availability could get interesting, but should be someone easy to solve.
-- War
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think bases are/were a step toward that Pandora's Box.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I'm also willing to roll the dice to give players more control over what they'd like to see...
Open the box... =)
[/ QUOTE ]
Too many potential problems.
Mods work for FPS's and games like NN because the world of that mod exists only on that single, small server. The benefits, no matter how hard or easy to obtain, don't go elsewhere. (Well, not easily).
On an MMO, that can quickly cause trouble with overall game balance or population density. Do you allow player-created content to mix in the mainstream? How do you control "Monty Hall" type maps, or maps built explicitly for farming or power-leveling? If you restrict player-created content to a sandbox, how do you get characters there? Who runs/supports those servers (and the related back-end needs)?
Where I think player-content might work is Arena maps. That IS a true sandbox with already established rules about how it works. That would basically bring in from most FPS games the custom map feature. Now, controlling the quantity, quality and availability could get interesting, but should be someone easy to solve.
-- War
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree arena maps. On of the other posters sent me this idea earlier on email http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showf...c=#Post8101472
Alot of other people talk about the unlocked potential of Arena. It's something people could use for PVP, PVE and RP. Thus a win, win, win for more than just our community.
It's be cool if it's plausible. Screw that, it would rock... =)
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. I was a Q3 maniac. I'd DM constantly, and 1v1 every night. I pwned the lan at qcon in 02, and I was a third tier 1v1 player. (That is, I could compete against the 2nd tier of players, who were the perpetual also-rans against the good pros)
Then I was a rabidly persistent NWN player. Played tons and tons of modules single player, and wrote tens of thousands of lines of nwscript for one of the most popular persistent worlds.
I wrote 100k lines of code implementing a MUD, and played competitively for ages on a hardcore PvP mud, back in the day.
I played C&C:RA a ton.
Never played an MMO until CoH, but I've been here for 3 years and actually active during most of it.
I don't feel like there's much of a rhyme or reason.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think bases are/were a step toward that Pandora's Box.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. I'm also willing to roll the dice to give players more control over what they'd like to see...
Open the box... =)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too many potential problems.
Mods work for FPS's and games like NN because the world of that mod exists only on that single, small server. The benefits, no matter how hard or easy to obtain, don't go elsewhere. (Well, not easily).
On an MMO, that can quickly cause trouble with overall game balance or population density. Do you allow player-created content to mix in the mainstream? How do you control "Monty Hall" type maps, or maps built explicitly for farming or power-leveling? If you restrict player-created content to a sandbox, how do you get characters there? Who runs/supports those servers (and the related back-end needs)?
Where I think player-content might work is Arena maps. That IS a true sandbox with already established rules about how it works. That would basically bring in from most FPS games the custom map feature. Now, controlling the quantity, quality and availability could get interesting, but should be someone easy to solve.
-- War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree arena maps. On of the other posters sent me this idea earlier on email http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showf...c=#Post8101472
Alot of other people talk about the unlocked potential of Arena. It's something people could use for PVP, PVE and RP. Thus a win, win, win for more than just our community.
It's be cool if it's plausible. Screw that, it would rock... =)
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed 100% the Arena and potential offshoots (like the training simulator idea) have such enormous potential it is mind blowing. Right now the main community hears Arena and their brain ticks right over to pvp, they don't think just a little outside the box about what the arena actually is. A controlled enviroment for adventure. As you said, huge potential for pve,pvp and rp functions.
Sign me up please!
Gah, this is growing faster than I can keep up....
Castle, one thing that would be very helpful for this kind of discussion would be some numbers that we don't have access to. For example, the question of replay value of the PvP zones in CoX could be well demonstrated by looking at the number of a couple of badges.
If we could see how many people have Forward Observer (Rep of 100+ is a good indicator of someone who actually PvP's) and some of the "time in zone" badges like Siren's Song it would be good indication of how many people reuse the content there.
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its absolutely true that there is a modding community and they contribute to the diversity of the games. I don't think that is much of an issue in this case though. While no one expects (though it would be nice) for any MMO to release a tool kit and let players contribute content, people do expect the people who run the MMO to add content over time. I guess I'd put it like this, which has changed more since 2000, DAoC or CS? I'll put my money firmly on DAoC, in all the major ways to measure change; ie number of lines of code, in-game content, art assets, balance changes, and changes to the play experience.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now this is true (sort of), and its surprised me a bit that it hadn't come up before 
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
But not the only model, while neither Guild Wars nor Diablo II are truly MMO's in all senses of the word they certainly attract many of the same players.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Then how do you explain the continued popularity (and huge expansion) of Xbox live? Granted there are some extra things that MS throws in, but the main aspect is providing hosting for multiplayer games and its far from free, in fact you have to have a gold membership to gain access to the multiplayer games:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/membe...ptioncards.htm
If Xbox live were calculated as a MMO, it would be the second largest:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...nchmarkpr.mspx
I'll go along with the idea that if it cost a fee to play CS that would reduce the number of players, but I don't think it would be a major reduction. People like to pretend that it doesn't cost money to play these games, but I can assure that is a serious mistake. While its true that anyone could host a game with a few buddies, but once you get beyond the small team vs small team size you need a dedicated box. This is even more true for the newer FPS games. Take a look at the pricing for game server rentals/hosting and you'll see what I mean.
Game Servers UT2004 Pricing
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Again, this is something of a fallacy because in almost all cases someone is paying. You can play all day on a free server, but someone is paying for it, often to advertise their server rental business 
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ QUOTE ]
Castle, one thing that would be very helpful for this kind of discussion would be some numbers that we don't have access to. For example, the question of replay value of the PvP zones in CoX could be well demonstrated by looking at the number of a couple of badges.
[/ QUOTE ]
I cannot release those numbers. That would have to come from someone above me!
[ QUOTE ]
Really? Then how do you explain the continued popularity (and huge expansion) of Xbox live? Granted there are some extra things that MS throws in, but the main aspect is providing hosting for multiplayer games and its far from free, in fact you have to have a gold membership to gain access to the multiplayer games
[/ QUOTE ]
I think most people think of XBox Live in the same way they think of their ISP -- it's a requirement to get to the content they want. A necessary evil.
[ QUOTE ]
I'll go along with the idea that if it cost a fee to play CS that would reduce the number of players, but I don't think it would be a major reduction. People like to pretend that it doesn't cost money to play these games, but I can assure that is a serious mistake. While its true that anyone could host a game with a few buddies, but once you get beyond the small team vs small team size you need a dedicated box. This is even more true for the newer FPS games. Take a look at the pricing for game server rentals/hosting and you'll see what I mean.
Game Servers UT2004 Pricing
[/ QUOTE ]
True enough. Most end users, however, don't pay for those.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Again, this is something of a fallacy because in almost all cases someone is paying. You can play all day on a free server, but someone is paying for it, often to advertise their server rental business
[/ QUOTE ]
Someone is paying...but in most cases it isn't the end user. I'm sure that if Blizzard announced tomorrow that WoW would be free to play from now on, they'd pick up even more customers than they already have. I don't think the change would be as dramatic as if your BF2 account suddenly required a monthly fee to log into ANY BF2 server. A large percentage of end users would balk and simply stop playing BF2 at that point -- since there would still be other free alternatives with similar game play styles.
And that's really what my point is -- so long as a "free" alternative with roulghly equivalent feature sets exist in gaming, players will tend to go with those, rather than pay for a monthly subscription. Going back to your XBox live question -- there isn't an easily accessible "free" alternative to XBox Live. The customers are a captive audience -- if they want to play their games multiplayer, they pretty much have to have XBox Live. (One of my complaints about the 360 is how few games I can play multiplayer with my family.)
[ QUOTE ]
I cannot release those numbers. That would have to come from someone above me!
[/ QUOTE ]
That I expected, but if you could mention that this data would be nice for public consumption even if it had to be turned into percentages or otherwise obfuscated.
[ QUOTE ]
I think most people think of XBox Live in the same way they think of their ISP -- it's a requirement to get to the content they want. A necessary evil.
[/ QUOTE ]
But a significant amount of that content is in the form of FPS games. Halo, Rainbow Six, etc. make up a huge portion of that market so the concept that FPS players won't pay monthly fees seems to not be true, at least not in all cases.
[ QUOTE ]
True enough. Most end users, however, don't pay for those.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have any real method for determining how many people pay, but I can say that there are many more private servers than there are public ones and any gaming clan will have their own server. Does it equal the same fees that a ~15 dollar a month MMO subscription fee equal? I don't think so, but between Ventrilo, game server, and web hosting I think its pretty close. I know exactly how much it costs us to keep 150 Ventrilo slots each month (thankfully we don't have to pay for web hosting since a member donates some server space) and we have rented our own FPS game servers (and will again I'm sure) despite most of our members not being hardcore FPS players.
[ QUOTE ]
And that's really what my point is -- so long as a "free" alternative with roulghly equivalent feature sets exist in gaming, players will tend to go with those, rather than pay for a monthly subscription. Going back to your XBox live question -- there isn't an easily accessible "free" alternative to XBox Live. The customers are a captive audience -- if they want to play their games multiplayer, they pretty much have to have XBox Live. (One of my complaints about the 360 is how few games I can play multiplayer with my family.)
[/ QUOTE ]
If that is true, then why would anyone play any online fantasy RPG besides Guild Wars? While money is a motivator, I don't think FPS games are quite a free as they are represented and I don't think money is as powerful as we sometimes think. Money gets attention in many cases because for the people who it affects it has a big impact. However we know that the gaming population is getting older (NPR said the other day that the average age of "gamers" today is 34, though I can't find the reference this has some of the same data NPR and gaming ages
As the average age of gamers increases, money becomes less of an issue.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
A bit off-topic, but to the person that mentioned Planetside, it is NOTHING like CounterStrike. They are on complete opposite ends of the FPS spectrum, as it were.
I do know, because I played it for a year a long time ago. I only dropped it because of COH.
My new Youtube Channel with CoH info
You might know me as FlintEastwood now on Freedom
I also enjoyed PLanetside. I'd still play ittoday if I still had Broadband avaialble to me. Can't play it on Dial-up 
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ] I'll have to say that's incorrect on a number of levels. PvE mobs, on average (Excluding AV's, EBs, and GMs) have substantially less hit points than players. In some cases, an order of magnitude less. PvE mobs have a far fewer array of powers at their disposal, nor can they use inspirations, accolades, temp powers, or even find a perfect teammate. Most importantly, PvE mobs (with a few exceptions) don't have the mobility of players with travel powers. PvP doesn't have to make any changes to create longer lasting battles, the differences are already there.
[ QUOTE ]
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
[/ QUOTE ] If this is your opinion then I suggest fighting a wider range of opponents. My /SR battles with /Regens, stalkers or scrappers, don't last less than 10 minutes assuming there is a victor. I can say the same for Brutes and Tankers.
IME, the only time I have short battles is either in the Arena where the time contstraint forces the action and you have two people who want to fight a priori, or against go-for-broke blasters or people who just aren't very good at PvP.
I recall a fight against a BS/Regen in Warburg that took me 35 minutes to finally beat him and it was a monument to patience and tactical planning and execution.
[ QUOTE ]
a tactical decision has to have immediate reward or its likely to be a waste of time.
[/ QUOTE ] I find the exact opposite to be true. PvP combat in FFA zones and the Arena is very tactical and the longer the battles, the more tactics are the decideing factor. There are some builds that my non-PvP build DM/SR simply cannot defeat without inspirations, but there are many I can and more often than not, the difference is my ability to make tactical decisions.
[ QUOTE ]
one of the things that I think is problematic in PvP is the time frame of the combat.
[/ QUOTE ]
The time frame of combat is not a problem, in my opinion. Some battles are quick, some are long, and some are indefinite. That is exactly what one should expect. Tactics plays a roll in deciding the fate of all three. When I use powers, when I go from defensive to offensive mode, when I use inspirations, are tactial decisions that come into play in PvP battles that I've been in.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ] Once again, I disagree. From both a comic book perspective and a game play perspective the problem is not travel powers. "Escaping" is the primary plot extension device in comic books, for both Heroes and Villians. One of the things any good FFA'er does is make sure they have an exit strategy. Where to run, how for you have to go, and the best travel power are all important and valid parts of PvP combat.
[ QUOTE ]
slower fights not only create tactical opportunities
[/ QUOTE ] There's nothing inherently better about slower fights. The ability to make the correct tactical decisions is as much of skill in a short fight as a long one. The devs don't need to artificially extend the fights.
Now, having said that, one of the perceived problems in PvP is the lack of player determinable settings. Zones seem wide open and it often feel impossible to corner people. Nevertheless, within limits, you can chose locations, or even draw your opponent to locations which are more or less mobility restrictive. I've goaded a number of flyers and jumbers below the streets of Warburg where their movement was crippled and my Super Speed had the advantage. Obviously some Arena maps and PvP zones have more or less to offer than others, but in any case, artifical restriction of mobility is exactly that: artificial.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ] I emphatically agree with this. It is absolutely beyond me why the devs did not slap a 100% Acc debuff (which also lingers for 10 seconds after being shut off) on Super Speed, Super Jump, Flight, and Teleport. Travel suppression was the wrong way to deal with this and it still is. It continues to feel illogical in both PvE and PvP. At 100% debuff, it would take a full team to ovecome the debuff, and the other team would have access to the same options.
[ QUOTE ]
The other thing you can do is create more ways in which maximum effectiveness tends to automatically preclude travel
[/ QUOTE ] I would not use that approach beyond the Acc debuff. Instead I would make it so that some powers cannot be activated with travel powers on. This will preclude SS/SJ Empaths from avoiding the travel penalty despite providing tremendous beneift while avoiding attack. If Empaths want to keep SS/SJ on the entire time ...not a problem. You just can't get away with drive-by Fortitude or Heal Other or Ressurect, or any other single ally buff; AoE's heal/buffs I would allow. Travel powers should also turn off any Toggle Debuffs as well. You wanna run? Go ahead...you just don't get to debuff someone while traveling at 80mph. I think this would be a vast improvement to PvP and also mitigate a lot of the cheese builds/tactics people employ.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ] I emphatically agree with this. It is absolutely beyond me why the devs did not slap a 100% Acc debuff (which also lingers for 10 seconds after being shut off) on Super Speed, Super Jump, Flight, and Teleport. Travel suppression was the wrong way to deal with this and it still is. It continues to feel illogical in both PvE and PvP. At 100% debuff, it would take a full team to ovecome the debuff, and the other team would have access to the same options.
[ QUOTE ]
The other thing you can do is create more ways in which maximum effectiveness tends to automatically preclude travel
[/ QUOTE ] I would not use that approach beyond the Acc debuff. Instead I would make it so that some powers cannot be activated with travel powers on. This will preclude SS/SJ Empaths from avoiding the travel penalty despite providing tremendous beneift while avoiding attack. If Empaths want to keep SS/SJ on the entire time ...not a problem. You just can't get away with drive-by Fortitude or Heal Other or Ressurect, or any other single ally buff; AoE's heal/buffs I would allow. Travel powers should also turn off any Toggle Debuffs as well. You wanna run? Go ahead...you just don't get to debuff someone while traveling at 80mph. I think this would be a vast improvement to PvP and also mitigate a lot of the cheese builds/tactics people employ.
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel the need to point out that these particular perspectives revolve around the premise that travel powers should have some inherent disadvantages in PvP. I have no problem with this premise. Once travel suppression was implemented for both PvP AND PvE, I took exception - and still do.
It took 4 issues to FINALLY deal with that TERRIBLE, risk vs reward exploit in PvE with the travel suppression "compromise". Imagine how horrible our beloved game would have been if all that PvP jousting hadn't uncovered an attrocious, game-breaking PvE flaw in CoX! We might not even be here to talk about it!
Many folks (like me) disagreed with this facade and called it what it truly was, a significant correction of a PvP problem that significantly affected PvE playstyle. My sarcasm above clearly reflects my chagrin with the devs' answer to jousting. There were no problems with PvE for 4 isssues. As soon as PvP reared it's ugly head, all of a sudden it was all about how unfair we had been exploiting the AI of all those poor NPCs. Thank you, very much, Dread Lords.
About the only thing good about the decision to enable travel power suppression, IMO was that they DID end up removing the -ACC penalty from flight.
[ QUOTE ]
Many folks (like me) disagreed with this facade and called it what it truly was, a significant correction of a PvP problem that significantly affected PvE playstyle. My sarcasm above clearly reflects my chagrin with the devs' answer to jousting. There were no problems with PvE for 4 isssues. As soon as PvP reared it's ugly head, all of a sudden it was all about how unfair we had been exploiting the AI of all those poor NPCs. Thank you, very much, Dread Lords.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, its funny I keep seeing people post this and it always make me laugh. I certainly exploited travel powers in PvE with my Blaster (first character) and suppression is more likely to be negated in (team) PvP via buffs than it is in PvE. I can't say what the devs "true" motivations are/were, but to claim that there was no PvE justification for making changes to how travel powers operate in combat is false. Would if have been changed if PvP were never introduced? I don't know, but at a minimum the situation is more complex than you've presented it.
*anti-smirk*
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ QUOTE ]
IME, the only time I have short battles is either in the Arena where the time contstraint forces the action and you have two people who want to fight a priori, or against go-for-broke blasters or people who just aren't very good at PvP.
I recall a fight against a BS/Regen in Warburg that took me 35 minutes to finally beat him and it was a monument to patience and tactical planning and execution.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to agree (for the most part) with Mieux here. PvP combat is not a series of insta kills when the player's skill level is close to being even. When high skill team PvP groups have a match, the total kill count is often below 30 and its not uncommon to see matches where neither team gets into double digit kills in 10 or 20 minute matches. These are groups that would get over a hundred kills against an inexperienced team. I don't agree that the arena causes short battles.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many folks (like me) disagreed with this facade and called it what it truly was, a significant correction of a PvP problem that significantly affected PvE playstyle. My sarcasm above clearly reflects my chagrin with the devs' answer to jousting. There were no problems with PvE for 4 isssues. As soon as PvP reared it's ugly head, all of a sudden it was all about how unfair we had been exploiting the AI of all those poor NPCs. Thank you, very much, Dread Lords.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, its funny I keep seeing people post this and it always make me laugh. I certainly exploited travel powers in PvE with my Blaster (first character) and suppression is more likely to be negated in (team) PvP via buffs than it is in PvE. I can't say what the devs "true" motivations are/were, but to claim that there was no PvE justification for making changes to how travel powers operate in combat is false. Would if have been changed if PvP were never introduced? I don't know, but at a minimum the situation is more complex than you've presented it.
*anti-smirk*
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you're amused. However, I'll reiterate for the sake of clarity that I don't believe travel powers ever were in any way being "exploited" in PvE. In fact, I believe travel suppression wasn't even REMOTELY a PvE consequence. Ironically, it wasn't until folks were getting pwned in the Arena when the devs starting justifying how imbalanced the PvE had become. The only things complex about this were the dance steps to sell it, sir.
This is a superhero/supervillain MMO. At a "minimum", comic lore does not support what our dev team justified needing to be done to travel powers. IMO, PvP balance is what supported it and PvE play fell victim to the excuse. We appear to disagree. And while that's ok, I feel compelled to distinguish your use of the term exploit from mine in the proper context.
[ 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 ]
Since we're coming on page 50, I wanted to recap this. I think Screaming mimi summerized everything here the best so far. so, I'll quote mimi again... =)
If no one has read the ideas for PVP, PVE and RP improvements to the Arena, you might want to take a look. The community came up with some win, win, win ideas for everyone.
There is a lot of number debate. However, all of the venom from that is long gone and those who want to go through it can get a clear picture of what most people's ideas are and where they get their ideas from.
Overall, people have made this thread overwhelmingly positive. It is almost shockingly so.
We're still trying to reach more clairty on some issues, many of you would see as bean counter. However, there are a lot of good ideas.
Many thanks to everyone who kept the thread positive so far. =) Please keep presenting what you would think would be positive to add to pvp, since as mimi said, we're focusing on the 80% in the middle. =)
[ 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.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Amen, Protea.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you're amused. However, I'll reiterate for the sake of clarity that I don't believe travel powers ever were in any way being "exploited" in PvE. In fact, I believe travel suppression wasn't even REMOTELY a PvE consequence. Ironically, it wasn't until folks were getting pwned in the Arena when the devs starting justifying how imbalanced the PvE had become. The only things complex about this were the dance steps to sell it, sir.
This is a superhero/supervillain MMO. At a "minimum", comic lore does not support what our dev team justified needing to be done to travel powers. IMO, PvP balance is what supported it and PvE play fell victim to the excuse. We appear to disagree. And while that's ok, I feel compelled to distinguish your use of the term exploit from mine in the proper context.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I have to chime in with Thorizdin. I myself also used the travel powers, with BOTH Ranged and Melee archetypes to my advantage, and, I still do.
If an enemy is far too deadly for me in Melee, but I can shrug off their Ranged attacks, I joust /now/, and I can /still/ joust very effectively. Is this exploiting the AI? I suppose in some respects it is, however, I still see it as taking advantage of a distracted enemy. That is while they are animating their Ranged attack and are unable to retaliate with a melee attack, I run in jump at the last second with a melee attack queued, hit them and land just out of their melee range having hit them hard.
Currently, against enemies such as Mook Capo's, and other family who have Super Strength in melee, and the tommy gun for ranged. The difference in damage I take is staggering if I joust them. Full Auto has piss for damage per activation compared to the Super Strength attacks. By jousting and only being hit by ranged attacks I can take 1/10th of the damage compared to if I slugged it out in melee. Yes, that is /after/ suppression. I can, due to being quite adept at jousting, leave my defense toggles off for my Brute or Stalker and not go below 75% life against these foes, if I try to slug it out in melee with my toggles on I have to use two or three greens (assuming A-Strike misses that, or I am playing a Brute).
Is this exploiting the AI? Or is it just tactical use of a distracted enemy (aka still animating a ranged attack)? Probably the former to the dev's and the latter to the player's.
Though I do agree that jousting in PvP is a much larger problem then it ever has been in PvE, and I feel it still is a problem in PvP unfortunately but I feel they should do a fix for the PvP side only this time.
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Amen, Protea.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is an MMO out there that does just that. It's called Ryzom.
Here's the kicker, because it's player created content, you take full risk and there is no reward. You do not get xp, you do not get loot, you get nothing. (Unless the creator of the content happens to be there DM'ing and gives you a piece of loot he had earned elsewhere).
I myself, can not imagine a completely non-gameable content creator. Player's are either a) Going to make something that gives ludicrous xp for little risk or b) Will purposefully make a mission designed to give those running it perma-debt.
Dev created content is fully accessible to everyone, there are few secrets out there (though some players do not know about nofuture.org.uk). With Player-created content, that allows rewards, then those players who /know/ about the right content to play will have an unfair advantage over other players who do not know. And this player-created content can continually change one day one thing is good, the next a different, etc. This will make it even harder on the casual gamer, what he just did the other day may no longer exist or exists in such a way that it's bad.
When there is player-created content for a game that has /protected/ servers, that player-created content absolutely can not be gameable in any way, and we all know how creative players are at just doing that. Which is why the better solution for developers with /protected/ servers is to either a) Make player-created content have no reward for any amount of risk or b) Disallow player-created content completely.
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I have to chime in with Thorizdin. I myself also used the travel powers, with BOTH Ranged and Melee archetypes to my advantage, and, I still do.
[/ QUOTE ]
No need to apologize, especially since there isn't much you've said to discount my opinion. Strangely enough, none of the strategies you've mentioned that supposedly "exploit" the mechanics of the game are considered game-breaking enough to warrant a "fix" from our dev team for some reason. I wonder why ...
Oh that's right ... the issues don't appear to have much of an impact in PvP combat.
IMO, there is nothing wrong with using your travel powers to your advantage in either PvE or PvP. Superman does. Spiderman does. The Flash does. Nightcrawler sure as hell does. Insert your hero name here. If the supposedly broken mechanical limitations of animation and reaction time by either player or mob won't change in this game, why should the travel powers change? For PvP balance? 
I strongly believe that just because they were called travel powers shouldn't imply they should only have been restricted for travel use. Travel Suppression was a mistake made long ago that some folks either just don't remember or care about anymore, apparently. I do. 
[ QUOTE ]
No need to apologize, especially since there isn't much you've said to discount my opinion. Strangely enough, none of the strategies you've mentioned that supposedly "exploit" the mechanics of the game are considered game-breaking enough to warrant a "fix" from our dev team for some reason. I wonder why ...
[/ QUOTE ]
Based on what? You're opinion? You're welcome to that, but simply saying I don't believe the earth is round doesn't make it so. The devs have consistently said this was an exploit in PvE, based on what evidence do you counter that?
[ QUOTE ]
I strongly believe that just because they were called travel powers shouldn't imply they should only have been restricted for travel use. Travel Suppression was a mistake made long ago that some folks either just don't remember or care about anymore, apparently. I do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lots of people made assumptions about Suppression, and despite being told they were wrong by the developers and players they still refuse to believe that there couldn't have been something worth changing purely for PvE...could there? I can say this, there is no method in the game today that allows a solo player to advance as fast I could before suppression was added.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No need to apologize, especially since there isn't much you've said to discount my opinion. Strangely enough, none of the strategies you've mentioned that supposedly "exploit" the mechanics of the game are considered game-breaking enough to warrant a "fix" from our dev team for some reason. I wonder why ...
[/ QUOTE ]
Based on what? You're opinion? You're welcome to that ...
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. My opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
... but simply saying I don't believe the earth is round doesn't make it so. The devs have consistently said this was an exploit in PvE, based on what evidence do you counter that?
[/ QUOTE ]
I know what they've said. On what evidence do they support their assessment that it was an exploit? Haven't we seen some of the excuses already in this thread? Simply saying it was an exploit in PvE doesn't make it so either. I'll summarize by reiterating that the timing they chose to address the matter undermines their credibility on the issue in my view.
Our devs' vision is just fine for you & you may gladly follow them wherever they take the game. However, some folks aren't as happy with some of the decisions they've made, and it's a privilege to add my voice where appropriate. It doesn't make us wrong. It makes us different and no less credible than you.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you're amused. However, I'll reiterate for the sake of clarity that I don't believe travel powers ever were in any way being "exploited" in PvE. In fact, I believe travel suppression wasn't even REMOTELY a PvE consequence.
[/ QUOTE ] There's a common fallacy that many players, across almost any MMO, operate under. Allow me to dispell it:
Just becacuase something doesn't change after an update doesn't mean the devs are happy with it.
There have been many powers in this game that the devs have not changed for several issues, but they knew it was a problem from the start. There are still things like this.
I won't speak for the devs and say how they speficially felt about jousting in PvE...but I will say that they have explicity talked and designed and modified this game around a risk vs. reward model. Penalty-free travel powers substantially skew the risk vs reweard in PvE. I am of the belief that PvP just forced them to deal with the problem sooner rather than later.
I realize it's in vogue to blame PvE changes on PvP, but it may not be accurate and may actually be detrimental to understanding what the real reasons are.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you're amused. However, I'll reiterate for the sake of clarity that I don't believe travel powers ever were in any way being "exploited" in PvE. In fact, I believe travel suppression wasn't even REMOTELY a PvE consequence.
[/ QUOTE ] There's a common fallacy that many players, across almost any MMO, operate. Allow me to dispell it:
Just becacuase something doesn't change after an update doesn't mean the devs are happy with it.
There have been many powers in this game that the devs have not changed for several issues, but they knew it was a problem from the start. There are still things like this.
I won't speak for the devs and say how they speficially felt about jousting in PvE...but I will say that they have explicity talked and designed and modified this game around a risk vs. reward model. Penalty-free travel powers substantially skew the risk vs reweard in PvE. I am of the belief that PvP just forced them to deal with the problem sooner rather than later.
I realize it's in vogue to blame PvE changes on PvP, but it may not be accurate and may actually be detrimental to understanding what the real reasons are.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a fair argument. I won't dispute the premise.
However, I don't believe risk vs. reward was ever a significant consideration with the PvE game (insofar as the travel powers were concerned) until AFTER they started dancing the PvP two-step in Issue 4.
[ QUOTE ]
slower fights
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not. The speed is the #1 ingredient keeping me and the majority of PvP'ers I know in the game. When people talk about how innovative CoX PvP the speed is usually forming the core of that opinion.
If I wanted slow I wouldn't have quit WoW PvP. The day I find myself running across Siren's using Sprint and Fitness (as the norm, not b/c I'm debuffed) is the day I quit CoX as well.
Give an Arena option to completely turn off travel powers.