Why do the devs hate COV?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem supporting more zones for villain side, I just don't see the value in the new zones being hazard zones.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not going to happen, so there's nothing to argue about.
But villains getting access to hazard zones would be an improvement over villains not getting anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your opinion. Hazard Zones on CoV would be a huge waste of code. I play CoV more often then CoH and I would HATE the idea of the Devs spending time creating wastelands like hazard zones rather then adding additional SFs or new storylines or QoL improvements or bug fixes or lag reduction.

Any new CoV content/fixes > New CoV Hazard Zone

[/ QUOTE ]
I think what most people meant was giving villains access to the Hazard zones.

Quite frankly, that'd be rad provided they update them with villain content. It'd give villains a way to interact indirectly with heroes. Like, both sides throw monkey wrenches in the other's plans with the content.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't that be nice? Something other than the way the PvP zones are handled though. Villains do some missions, cause more problems for heroes. Heroes do some missions, cause some problems for villains. Villains complain that they get the raw end of the deal because there are more hero players. Heroes complain that they get the raw end of the deal becuase they don't play in hazard zones which are now filled with villains who've never had a chance to use 'em before. It'll be magical.

---

Giving villains access to hero Hazard zones will simply see people complain that villains are still getting hero content that they are only given as an afterthought. Evidence to this exists within this very thread.

Furthermore, simply giving villains access to hazard zones Warburg-style makes no sense. What do villains stand to gain from tearing up Perez Park? How do they even get there? Flier? How long is it going to take before the US Air Force puts a few Raptors on constant air superiority patrol over the city and before the army installs a few million SAM sites. Mayhems and the occasional jail break is one thing, but a constant on-demand flier service is quite another.

Lastly, simply retooling the Hazard zones into mixed content comes with its own host of problems. We don't want to see them turned into PvP zones (no, really, we don't), and having heroes and villains coexist in the same zone without PvP, err... Makes no sense whatsoever. Oruborous is sort of an exception to this, as it's a small place where you don't actually have to do anything that would pit you against the other people there, so you can assume you just go there when there are no enemies around.

And, as a side note, retooling the Hazard zones to accomodate villains is a crude solution that doesn't actually fix any problems at all. CoV nees more villain zones to define its own environment. Going to, say, Eden means nothing within the context of CoV, it's just "one more zone that's off in another place." What CoV needs is zones made and designed specifically for it, not more shared and shoehorned content. Sharing Hazard zones will just end up diluting the essence of CoV further still, and there isn't much left to dilute before we lose it altogether.

---

Well, what *I* would like to see is villains usurping a few zone from the heroes, zones that are outside of Paragon City proper. Letting villains into the hero hazard zones, especially zones behind the war walls, makes no sense (as you pointed out). The Shadow Shard is a good candidate for that.

I would not mind seeing more zones where heroes and villains interact... but NOT like RWZ. With the exception of Hamidon, I don't think we need any more co-op zones. I don't think we need any more flat out PvP zones either... although it really doesn't make sense for the zones not to be.

Then again, we already HAVE zones where heroes and villains effect each other. PvP zones already have the missions to give either side buffs or debuffs. Siren's Call has the bounties and the street brawls. Does anyone actually participate in those? We've got the pillboxes etc. at Recluse's Victory.

I wouldn't mind seeing a more King-of-the-Hill type PvP zone. Players can run missions to open or lock down areas of the map, so that people can participate in the zone without necessarily having to PvP. People in the PvP part of the zone can make changes that effect the missions. Would work well in a prison setting, where villains are trying to break it open, heroes are trying to lock it down, inside of missions doors could be opened or closed depending on what's going on outside, convicts could be released to fight heroes, guard houses could be opened to fight villains, sections could be locked down (with a way to open them from inside the door in case someone's on that side when they close) that could provide people to tag along with the party, stuff like that.

I still want to see faction specific contacts inside of RWZ. Longbow working separate from Vanguard. Villains trying to help the Rikti.

I'd also like to see some villains getting into Boomtown. It's a hazard zone that's at the edge of the city walls. It's already wrecked to hell. Heroes already complain about the place, and villains already have a mission that takes us in there to hamper the rebuilding process. I would love to see an issue where Villains first gain access to the zone, and later, usurp it from the heroes. Heroes don't seem to want that zone anyway.

---

[ QUOTE ]


In your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some content, even if you personally don't like it, is quantifiably better than getting NOTHING.

There is no opinion there, it's a simple statement of fact.
Pretending otherwise is laughable.

---

The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

[ QUOTE ]
Some content, even if you personally don't like it, is quantifiably better than getting NOTHING.

There is no opinion there, it's a simple statement of fact.
Pretending otherwise is laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, laughable is pretending that hazard zones constitute "content".

Putting twelve teleporters in your base instead of four to get full zone coverage (and upgrading your plot size to accomodate them all) is not "content".

Traveling through two or three extra zones to get to your missions is not "content".

And if you persist in the insane notion that CoH is better off for these flaws, nobody is stopping YOU from blowing a ton of prestige on extra teleporters or running a couple of laps around Primeva in between every mission. You know, to capture the coveted "Hazard Zone content" that the devs are denying you.

---

CoV does need some love. What is off for me with the game is the boxed in feeling I get with the general layout of zones and character advancement. Coh has a number of zones available for advancement at any give point, where CoV feels like one or two zones max at a given time.



I would rather see a third city added where both sides can go and play.

---

[ QUOTE ]

No, laughable is pretending that hazard zones constitute "content".

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain how a zone full of enemies to defeat that give you exp and drops isn't content.


I'll wait here.

---

The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how a zone full of enemies to defeat that give you exp and drops isn't content.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it IS content in purely technical terms, it is largely WASTED content. And I, for one, am of the opinion that nothing is indeed better than wasted content. We do not need more eggs like the Shadow Shard that consume massive amounts of the level designers' time and end up seeing exactly diddly squat use.

Sometimes any content is not better than no content, specifically when it costs a hell of a lot more than it actually helps. Better that we wait a little longer and get something that's actually worth the disk space it's saved on. Which is a shame, since that wasted content consists of some of the most beautiful zones in the game, yet there's not POINT in actually going there.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain how a zone full of enemies to defeat that give you exp and drops isn't content.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it IS content in purely technical terms.....

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of contention is people saying they ARE NOT CONTENT, when they demonstrably are.

I'm not saying you have to like it or approve of it.
It is what it is, and the people saying otherwise are flat out wrong.

---

The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

It is content, yes. It's just not better than nothing. As a matter of fact, it IS nothing. Some kinds of content simply are.

---

[ QUOTE ]
It is content, yes. It's just not better than nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely wrong.

There are plenty of us who enjoy spending time in hazard zones.

Saying hazard zone content is "worse than nothing" is completely ridiculous.

Happily, the only place you're the arbiter of what content is "good" and "bad" is in your own head.

---

The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

I would just like to point out that everyone [censored] about the "wasted content" of CoV hazard zones has only proven the point of the Villains players who feel that I8-11 have been "wasted content" for CoV.

---

[ QUOTE ]
I would just like to point out that everyone [censored] about the "wasted content" of CoV hazard zones has only proven the point of the Villains players who feel that I8-11 have been "wasted content" for CoV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hypocrisy is the new oil.

---

[ QUOTE ]
I would just like to point out that everyone [censored] about the "wasted content" of CoV hazard zones has only proven the point of the Villains players who feel that I8-11 have been "wasted content" for CoV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't see that I see your point. Your trying to compare Mango's to Steak. Just doesn't work.

---

But it's MY sadistic mechanical monster and I'm here to make sure it knows it. - Girl Genius

List of Invention Guides

That's ok, Terra. We all know that you cannot accept that someone else could have a different opinion than your own, and that if you personally like something than everyone else had better feel the same way or else they don't count. How DARE someone have characters with different priorities than yours, hmm?

---

[ QUOTE ]
Can't see that I see your point. Your trying to compare Mango's to Steak. Just doesn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]
Group One: Issues Eight to Eleven didn't give villains any content!
Group Two: Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't content.
Group One: How about a couple hazard zones get introduced to villains?
Group Two: Hazard zones aren't content!

I, personally, am against hazard zones because it turns the "Villains only get rehashed hero garbage" way of thinking into that much more of a reality.

I'd much rather have alternative tabs to the "City-wide" and "Zone-wide" maps. The players shouldn't have to look on the net to see that Thorn Isle has spawns of eight or more, etc. There are places where team-friendly street sweeping takes place, but simply making entire zones for it puts everything in a simple and easy format.

---

[ QUOTE ]
You are completely wrong.
There are plenty of us who enjoy spending time in hazard zones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, I don't deny it. I've yet to see such people, though, being one who likes to just trot around hazard zones, myself. I don't doubt your word, but I do believe history has shown that, even though some people enjoy hazard zones, they are wasted content, all things considered.

And besides, having missions inside hazard zones does not prevent anyone from spending time in them. It should, therefore, follow, that adding hazard zones (without missions in them) to CoV would be about equivalent to nothing, considering the same amount effort could have gone towards adding REAL zones to CoV that allow you to spend time in them just as you would in a barren hazard zone, but also have missions to draw everyone else in.

I never said hazard zones themselves are nothing. Said adding them is the same as adding nothing - it takes a great deal of resources, time and money for what amounts to nothing in return. You can argue how much more than nothing it is, but the fact remains that it is not enough to offset the cost of creation by a long shot.

Frankly, one just needs to look at the Shadow Shard, the game's biggest example of "just about nothing" to see just how much of a waste mission-less hazard zones really are. I LOVE the Shadow Shard and I've spent countless hours in there and I STILL feel it is just about nothing in terms of content.

[ QUOTE ]
Happily, the only place you're the arbiter of what content is "good" and "bad" is in your own head.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I know this was intended to be a belittling insult, you are very correct. I don't have the burden of decision and consequence on my shoulders, so I don't feel particularly bound by a responsibility to be mindful of negative feedback. Since I don't have a game to run, I don't feel I need to "hold my tongue," as it were. The decision is not in my hands, so believe me, you have nothing to fear from me, no matter how much you may disagree with what I say.

However, I am more than convinced in my standpoint. Adding hazard zones to CoV would be worse than adding nothing, because nothing now means content later. A hazard zone now means bupkis later. You have one more zone which counts towards solving CoV's problem with a lack of zones, when in fact it solves nothing. CoV remains as lacking as it was, only now the developers believe they've fixed the problem, and Lord knows how long it'll be before they acknowledge, like they did with City of Heroes, that hazard zones solve nothing and better means are required.

Then again, looking at the past few Issues, I can safely say that that is one lesson they have already learned. Whether you agree with me or not, you can be pretty sure City of Villains will NOT see any hazard zones added to it. No part of the game ever will. Level-locked zones will continue to exist, and zones which contain Hazard- and even Trial-size spawns will exist, as well. But all future zones will have missions in them.

Hazard zones would only be better than nothing if they were significantly faster, cheaper and easier to make than zones with missions. They are not, not by much. As such it is an outright waste to bother with them.

I'm sorry if you like hunting in hazard zones and I seem to be peeing on your begonias, but I cannot see a single justifiable reason for any new zone to be developed without mission content in it. And anything less IS just about nothing.

---

[ QUOTE ]
I would just like to point out that everyone [censored] about the "wasted content" of CoV hazard zones has only proven the point of the Villains players who feel that I8-11 have been "wasted content" for CoV.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason hazard zones are wasted content "for CoV" rather than "for the game" is because hazard zones WILL NOT be added to CoH come hell or high water. The return is not worth the investment as the zones lie empty the majority of the time. While it is self-evident that hazard zones will not be added to CoH, it is not as easy to claim so for CoV, as CoV doesn't have any, and there is a very real notion to keep the sides balanced in terms of concepts that exist. Naturally, one would expect that, since CoV doesn't have trial and hazard zones, it should.

The existence of that notion is what brings about the response that hazard zones would be wasted content for CoV, just like they are wasted content for CoH. Adding them when similar-price alternative designs of superior quality have become the norm.

By comparison, almost everything added from I2 onwards has been effective content, seeing enough characters of appropriate level making use of it. The Arena, PvP in general and bases may or may not be exceptions, but the fact remains - unlike hazard and trial zones, people use that content regularly, therefore it's not wasted.

---

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, I don't deny it. I've yet to see such people, though, being one who likes to just trot around hazard zones, myself. I don't doubt your word, but I do believe history has shown that, even though some people enjoy hazard zones, they are wasted content, all things considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not "considering" anything but your own backwards idea of how people should play the game.

This post is the verbal equivalent of someone hitting "random" in the character generator.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said hazard zones themselves are nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes you did.

I'm through wasting my time arguing with people who think making up nonsense and contradicting themselves from paragraph to paragraph makes them right.

Hazard zones ARE content, and good-night.

---

The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

[ QUOTE ]
You're not "considering" anything but your own backwards idea of how people should play the game.
This post is the verbal equivalent of someone hitting "random" in the character generator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me put it in plain English, then. Creating content for you and the other two people who prefer their zones to not have any missions is a waste. An empty zone with nothing but street spawns is nothing because nobody needs that.

Oh, look, I've been sugar-coating a really shallow idea. I'm ashamed of holding that opinion, myself, but it cannot be helped. I will not deny some people like hazard zones. I will deny, however, that hazard zones are content in anything but the most technical definition, the one by which we can claim that the PDP (Paragon Dance Party, the precursor of Pocket D) is content.

It's really not that complicated. A zone without missions in it is empty for all that matters. Salvaging some use out of it does not constitute content, not such more of which needs to be added.

You're arguing semantics, yet when I get down to arguing semantics I'm certainly contradicting myself. But that's OK, that's how semantic arguments go, I suppose.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, but let's entertain the notion. I would have said "hazard zones are nothing" in several instances, that much is true. However, one needs to examine the context. Hazard zones THEMSELVES are not "nothing." They are a very clearly defined "something," and would count as content, under a rather loose definition of the term.

However, within the context of what we are discussing, that adding hazard zones is better than adding "nothing," then hazard zones ARE nothing. Not in and of themselves, but in this context. Adding hazard zones to a game that shipped without them is not only the same as adding nothing, it is demonstrably worse in certain cases. It is a logical shorthand, then, to say "hazard zones are nothing," considering that you will read it within that given context.

Obviously you are not, and given your above "random" comment I can only conclude you missed my point by a mile. But that's OK, it was probably my mistake, and I say that quite seriously. I'll look into my own use of expressions to ensure that such misunderstandings don't happen in the future. It is disappointing to see people doing the Internet equivalent of stepping back before they lose their cool. Normally, that would make you the bigger person by not insisting you are right at all costs. I'm not sure this applies here, as I did not view this as a heated debate, but for the sake of open discussion, I'll concede that backing off is the intelligent thing to do and keeping at it (which is what I'm doing) is the less than intelligent thing to do. I suppose I'll suffer my own consequences, then.

[ QUOTE ]
Hazard zones ARE content, and good-night.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would really rather not examine the perceived tone of this, as my examination would be nothing short of insulting and that is hardly called for. Chances are I'm reading it wrong, anyway, since everyone knows tone does not transfer well over the Internet. I will, however, attempt to put my point in a single sentence so at to try and avoid any further claims of contradiction.

Hazard zones are content in and of themselves, but within the context which suggests adding hazard zones to CoV is better than nothing, they are not better, and are in fact pretty much the same as the abovementioned "nothing," and often demonstrably worse. What they are in and of themselves is quite different from what they are within a pre-set context with clearly defined terms.

OK, so two sentences. It's pretty hard to argue semantics in simple terms.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can't see that I see your point. Your trying to compare Mango's to Steak. Just doesn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]
Group One: Issues Eight to Eleven didn't give villains any content!
Group Two: Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't content.
Group One: How about a couple hazard zones get introduced to villains?
Group Two: Hazard zones aren't content!

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to be that group two's problem isn't about what is or isn't content, they'd just be mad if Villains got hazard zones that Heroes already have because that wouldn't be adding something to HERO side, and that just won't do.

---

Considering that Sam seems to be the only one arguing against vil side hazard zones, I think the reason he's actually stated is more likely than yours....namely adding *cool* new zones vill side would be better than adding boxes with mobs, and that adding boxes with mobs would be counter-productive.

And really, I think he's spot on about the Devs recent actions here, too. The hazard zone as represented on the hero side is definetly going the way of the dinosaurs.

---

Furio--Lvl 50+3 Fire/Fire/Fire Blaster, Virtue
Megadeth--Lvl 50+3 Necro/DM/Soul MM, Virtue
Veriandros--Lvl 50+3 Crab Soldier, Virtue
"So come and get me! I'll be waiting for ye, with a whiff of the old brimstone. I'm a grim bloody fable, with an unhappy bloody end!" Demoman, TF2

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to be that group two's problem isn't about what is or isn't content, they'd just be mad if Villains got hazard zones that Heroes already have because that wouldn't be adding something to HERO side, and that just won't do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I'd be mad if villains got hero hazard zones because of two reasons.

Firstly, it's a cheap, arrogant cop-out of CoV's need for real content. Throwing villains a zone that's already among the least used content is, in my opinion, insulting, especially if the claim that this is meant to solve CoV's need for more content. Villains need good content designed specifically for their side, and taking the easy way out and just tossing them a few hazard zones is insulting, in my eyes.

Secondly, this means that hazard zones that get shared will not be improved the way Faultline was, leaving CoH with a bunch of ghost town zones AND adding a few ghost town zones to CoV for good measure. Villains need their own new zones and heroes need their own old zones refurbished. Anything less than that is taking the cheap, easy road, and one would hope the developers have well learned to do things right the first time around.

---

I so love it when I'm right

---

Furio--Lvl 50+3 Fire/Fire/Fire Blaster, Virtue
Megadeth--Lvl 50+3 Necro/DM/Soul MM, Virtue
Veriandros--Lvl 50+3 Crab Soldier, Virtue
"So come and get me! I'll be waiting for ye, with a whiff of the old brimstone. I'm a grim bloody fable, with an unhappy bloody end!" Demoman, TF2

[ QUOTE ]
I so love it when I'm right

[/ QUOTE ]

It's such a heart-warming feeling, indeed

I hope my being painfully predictable doesn't do much to spoil it

---