Why do the devs hate COV?

So do we know why the devs hate CoV yet?

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's just a BAD IDEA all around to fully combine the games. Having unique content in each game is a good thing, it's more reason to actually play them, and despite how many people refuse to accept it (devs included) they are different games, they play differently, they should BE different. Heroes != Villains. It's a damn shame the devs can't see past the "hero" side of things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Careful there... that sounds dangerously like the "Devs hate villains!" mindset. I really doubt they would ever consider merging the PVE sides of the game because it would pretty much make the classifications of "hero" and "villain" meaningless. If you can save a bunch of innocent civilians one moment, then rob a bank the next, what the heck are you? No, in the world of silver-age comics upon which this game was primarily based, good guys did the good deeds and bad guys did the bad deeds.

[ QUOTE ]
The Stalker "fix" feels Hella Nerfish.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it's supposed to be a fix nevertheless. It just needs some testing before they get it right.

[ QUOTE ]
Careful there... that sounds dangerously like the "Devs hate villains!" mindset.

[/ QUOTE ]
I firmly believe the devs overlook the Villain side of the game. I don't think they necessarily hate it, I just think they don't take it into consideration that often. Hell, they won't even acknowledge that it IS a separate entity. They treat it like just another Issue added to CoH, therefore they don't need to expand on it anymore. I don't think they're doing this becuase they don't like Villains, I think they are just so damned zoned in on City of HEROES that Villains just gets overlooked.

As a friend of mine is fond of saying: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." In this case, I think "ignorance" is more appropriate, however.

[ QUOTE ]
I really doubt they would ever consider merging the PVE sides of the game because it would pretty much make the classifications of "hero" and "villain" meaningless. If you can save a bunch of innocent civilians one moment, then rob a bank the next, what the heck are you? No, in the world of silver-age comics upon which this game was primarily based, good guys did the good deeds and bad guys did the bad deeds.

[/ QUOTE ]
I sincerely hope you are right. Silver and Golden age, the lines between good and evil are clearly drawn. But look at the last few additions of the game. They've been trying to erase that line already. It's a bad trend. "Villains" already CAN go rescue a bunch of innocents then turn around and rob a bank. Co-op RWZ for the lose.

The games, BOTH of them, need new content unique to each side. This includes play styles and mission types that the other does not have. Giving Heroes Safeguard missions was one of the biggest mistakes the devs have made. Mayhem missions were about the only thing in the game that let villains actually feel like villains. Turning around and giving a half-[censored] version to Heroes when Villains STILL are lacking in many of the basic features Heroes have was a bad precedent, which they've continued to uphold.

Do the devs HATE CoV? No. They just don't think it exists.

/Agree.

Also:

I wasn't suggesting they add world PvP, nor do I think the person Pax quoted meant that.

My points were that MMOs continually change and every change to the game is an adapt or move on situation that each individual faces.

The game wasn't launched with player villains at all, but we have them now. And because we have them now, if that aspect of the game needs more fixes, more attention for awhile, or more unique features to attract players...then it should get them.

It wouldn't work here, true, but imagine this game if we could make our own decisions about whether our Super (or Meta, or just Human) was good, evil, or amoral. A balance nightmare to be sure, but intriguing.

[ QUOTE ]

I firmly believe the devs overlook the Villain side of the game. I don't think they necessarily hate it, I just think they don't take it into consideration that often. Hell, they won't even acknowledge that it IS a separate entity. They treat it like just another Issue added to CoH, therefore they don't need to expand on it anymore. I don't think they're doing this becuase they don't like Villains, I think they are just so damned zoned in on City of HEROES that Villains just gets overlooked.

[/ QUOTE ]
Given that they're only selling this game as a bundle now, I think the real title of the game is "City of Heroes and City of Villains: Good versus Evil" or, as the forum likes to shorten it, City of X/CoX. CoH and CoV are two sides of the same game, and no matter how often I get disagreed with, I'll keep saying it.

[ QUOTE ]
As a friend of mine is fond of saying: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." In this case, I think "ignorance" is more appropriate, however.


[/ QUOTE ]
Another thing I'm getting tired of repeating myself on - it's not malice, stupidity, or ignorance that has caused CoV to be neglected, content-wise, for so long. It's been a simple lack of time, effort, and resources to devote to giving all aspects of the game the same amount of attention, so they instead concentrated their efforts on stuff that would provide the largest benefit to the playerbase in general. Villain side didn't get specific improvements, and neither did PVP, base raids, or older hero side content like the Abandoned Sewers Trial.

[ QUOTE ]
I sincerely hope you are right. Silver and Golden age, the lines between good and evil are clearly drawn. But look at the last few additions of the game. They've been trying to erase that line already. It's a bad trend. "Villains" already CAN go rescue a bunch of innocents then turn around and rob a bank. Co-op RWZ for the lose.

[/ QUOTE ]
The basic premise of co-op play I don't think was terribly a bad idea, since classic comics have had moments where good guys and bad guys have called a temporary truce to unite against a greater threat. The implementation was a bit clumsy in that everyone, hero or villain, was given the same set of contacts and missions that had a strong hero-ish flavor, but the basic idea wasn't a bad one, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
The games, BOTH of them, need new content unique to each side. This includes play styles and mission types that the other does not have. Giving Heroes Safeguard missions was one of the biggest mistakes the devs have made. Mayhem missions were about the only thing in the game that let villains actually feel like villains. Turning around and giving a half-[censored] version to Heroes when Villains STILL are lacking in many of the basic features Heroes have was a bad precedent, which they've continued to uphold.

[/ QUOTE ]
What basic features are villains lacking that heroes have? As I see it, both sides share:
-Inventions and Markets
-Mayhems/Safeguards
-LRSF/STF
-Ouroboros/Flashback
-Arenas and PVP zones
-Bases
-Hamidon and Rikti Mothership raids
-Pocket D
-Probably some other things I'm forgetting

The thing that villains lack is just more content. More zones, more missions, more contacts, more strike forces.

Also, I disagree that giving heroes safeguards was a mistake. It was a smart move.

[ QUOTE ]
It wouldn't work here, true, but imagine this game if we could make our own decisions about whether our Super (or Meta, or just Human) was good, evil, or amoral. A balance nightmare to be sure, but intriguing.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's where a pen and paper RPG would have been extremely useful... but alas... Eden Studios failed to deliver. However, that's a topic for another thread.

[ QUOTE ]

Another thing I'm getting tired of repeating myself on - it's not malice, stupidity, or ignorance that has caused CoV to be neglected, content-wise, for so long. It's been a simple lack of time, effort, and resources to devote to giving all aspects of the game the same amount of attention, so they instead concentrated their efforts on stuff that would provide the largest benefit to the playerbase in general. Villain side didn't get specific improvements, and neither did PVP, base raids, or older hero side content like the Abandoned Sewers Trial.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, that's still ignorance.

"Heroes have more players so they need more content then Heroes will get more players so that they'll need more content.." This inane circular logic only guarantees the doom of CoV. It is only stupidity that would rely on it.

[ QUOTE ]

The basic premise of co-op play I don't think was terribly a bad idea, since classic comics have had moments where good guys and bad guys have called a temporary truce to unite against a greater threat. The implementation was a bit clumsy in that everyone, hero or villain, was given the same set of contacts and missions that had a strong hero-ish flavor, but the basic idea wasn't a bad one, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rikti aren't a greater threat.

No matter how they tried to play it up in the story, the Rikti are JUST Rikti. It's ONLY an alien invading force. Bend on destroying the world, or all humanity on it, is irrelevant. As I've said before, I have chars who have the same background. WHY would they EVER side with the humans AGAINST a force that's doing the exact same thing they want to see happen? If the devs actually were thinking about the Villain side of the thing instead of their myopic focus on City of Heroes, they would have given each side some different contacts in RWZ that allows them to choose a side. Sure, have the co-op Vanguard if you truly believe it's necessary, but have a true hero faction and some villain factions. Some Villains would work WITH the Rikti.. after all, we already DO that in Grandville.

Hamidon was co-op worthy, but they didn't do it with Hamidon. They half-[censored] it.

So no, that excuse doesn't fly, at all. Devs dropped the ball, yet again.

[ QUOTE ]
What basic features are villains lacking that heroes have?

[/ QUOTE ]
So you admit your own ignorance. That explains a lot.

Let's see here, how about some basics like hazard zones, epic ATs, Trials, at LEAST one TF for every range, at LEAST two zones for every range, contacts that are origin dependent, hell, they even have the little info booths everywhere. The list goes on and on.

The devs have not even ATTEMPTED to make up the difference in the past two years. Everything added to the game since I8 has been dual sided. IE, City of HEROES comes first. Villains aren't thought about except to give them access to what you're adding. Nothing's been added FOR them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It wouldn't work here, true, but imagine this game if we could make our own decisions about whether our Super (or Meta, or just Human) was good, evil, or amoral. A balance nightmare to be sure, but intriguing.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's where a pen and paper RPG would have been extremely useful... but alas... Eden Studios failed to deliver. However, that's a topic for another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mutants and Masterminds.
HERO.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, that's still ignorance.

"Heroes have more players so they need more content then Heroes will get more players so that they'll need more content.." This inane circular logic only guarantees the doom of CoV. It is only stupidity that would rely on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's ignorance that thinks that CoV is being ignored to give CoH more content. Post-I8, they've been getting the same, or similar, stuff. If villain-side were truly getting ignored, they wouldn't have gotten their own Hamidon.

[ QUOTE ]
Rikti aren't a greater threat.

No matter how they tried to play it up in the story, the Rikti are JUST Rikti. It's ONLY an alien invading force. Bend on destroying the world, or all humanity on it, is irrelevant. As I've said before, I have chars who have the same background. WHY would they EVER side with the humans AGAINST a force that's doing the exact same thing they want to see happen?

[/ QUOTE ]
As it's been said many times already... just because the content is not content you like, doesn't nullify the fact that it is content. Maybe it doesn't fit your concepts, but maybe it does for other people. If you don't like it that much, don't do it, and keep waiting for them to update with something that does strike your fancy. Better yet, you could suggest what they could add in future updates. Better than beating a dead horse over and over again.

[ QUOTE ]
epic ATs

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll give you that one, along with the little info booths (though, isn't there one in RV? Or maybe in the instanced Mayhem missions? I forget, it's been a while). The rest, to me, fall under my blanket classification of "more content in general."

[ QUOTE ]
The devs have not even ATTEMPTED to make up the difference in the past two years. Everything added to the game since I8 has been dual sided. IE, City of HEROES comes first. Villains aren't thought about except to give them access to what you're adding. Nothing's been added FOR them.

[/ QUOTE ]
City of Heroes CAME first. That's largely why it's got so much content ahead of CoV. And I already talked about why CoV hasn't gotten specific content added in the past year.

There are honest and fair-minded reasons why CoV hasn't received a whole lot of specific attention in the past year - but sadly, all you can see - all you WANT to see - is "CoV didn't get stuff I wanted, therefore, DEVS HATE VILLAINS!"

[ QUOTE ]

City of Heroes CAME first. That's largely why it's got so much content ahead of CoV. And I already talked about why CoV hasn't gotten specific content added in the past year.

There are honest and fair-minded reasons why CoV hasn't received a whole lot of specific attention in the past year - but sadly, all you can see - all you WANT to see - is "CoV didn't get stuff I wanted, therefore, DEVS HATE VILLAINS!"

[/ QUOTE ]
There's been more than 2 years to balance it out. They haven't even TRIED. They've made zero effort. That *IS* a clear-cut bias.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

City of Heroes CAME first. That's largely why it's got so much content ahead of CoV. And I already talked about why CoV hasn't gotten specific content added in the past year.

There are honest and fair-minded reasons why CoV hasn't received a whole lot of specific attention in the past year - but sadly, all you can see - all you WANT to see - is "CoV didn't get stuff I wanted, therefore, DEVS HATE VILLAINS!"

[/ QUOTE ]
There's been more than 2 years to balance it out. They haven't even TRIED. They've made zero effort. That *IS* a clear-cut bias.

[/ QUOTE ]
They weren't going to balance it out on the low budget they had to work with. To do that, they would have had to spend an issue or two neglecting hero-side. Not a smart move to please a minority of the players at the expense of the majority of players. So instead, they decided to make the content a 50/50 split. Everybody got new stuff to play with.

[ QUOTE ]
There's been more than 2 years to balance it out. They haven't even TRIED. They've made zero effort. That *IS* a clear-cut bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I remember, the devs said that they'd do their best to give both heroes and villains roughly equal attention each issue.

Yes, that means that the games will never be completely balanced. CoH came first and has a big head start on content. Personally, I'd rather see both games get new and interesting content on a regular basis than have CoH ignored until CoV "caught up".

And here we go with the same old tired [censored] yet again. Sky repeats the failed circular logic. Mirai denounces a point that hasn't been made.

Nobody wants to see Heroes get shafted. But a 60/40 balance, or a 75/25 balance, still gives heroes plenty new to do and helps fill the obvious, glaring gaps in CoV.

But, the devs haven't even tried. And pardon me if I'm going to believe what I see from the devs over some Joe Random on the forums. Their intentions are obvious by their updates.

I believe I pointed out why your logic was what failed - you posted:
[ QUOTE ]
"Heroes have more players so they need more content then Heroes will get more players so that they'll need more content.."

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you miss where I pointed out that CoH isn't the only thing getting more content? Or maybe you didn't figure out that if people get dissatisfied with CoH and leave, that CoV will lose people too, and that bodes ill for both games? All you can focus is on "CoV needs more villain-specific content." And when it doesn't get that... clearly, it MUST be because the Devs hate villains!

[ QUOTE ]
And pardon me if I'm going to believe what I see from the devs over some Joe Random on the forums. Their intentions are obvious by their updates.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. Go ahead. Continue to believe that no viewpoint but your own is valid. You're right and there's no possibility you could, maybe, be wrong. After 30 pages of stubbornly hashing the same issues over and over again, you've earned the right.

[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe you didn't figure out that if people get dissatisfied with CoH and leave, that CoV will lose people too, and that bodes ill for both games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if the people that leave actually play both games and not just heroes. Some people do only play villains.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. Go ahead. Continue to believe that no viewpoint but your own is valid. You're right and there's no possibility you could, maybe, be wrong. After 30 pages of stubbornly hashing the same issues over and over again, you've earned the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto. But it's not actually about being right or wrong, it's about personal opinion of which everyone is entitled. If you don't agree you really don't need to be in the thread at all because you aren't going to convince anyone to change their mind.


CoV started out a much better game than CoH with it's streamlined mission and zone progression. It had unique costumes, mayhem missions, ATs, and perspective. But the devs did drop the ball on it. Instead of keeping up the momentum in order to draw players to it they gave almost all of its unique features to the blue side too. If it was up to some people here the blue side would have everything the red side does so that they would never have to play an evil villain at all.

Now, the devs barely upkeep CoV, not keep it innovative. Rather than merge the two worlds and keep adding cross content I'd rather they break the two apart and run them as separate games with separate dev teams. Charge a separate subscription fee. At least that way CoV might get the attention it needs and deserves.

I had a real long post, then deleted it, you are right nancy, there is no convincing any one. I am all for the 60/40 or 70/30 split, but there are people who will not be happy unless there is a total focus. I have decided some people just like to [censored] about stuff. I trust the Devs, and like the direction the game has taken over the last year, I will be staying.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe you didn't figure out that if people get dissatisfied with CoH and leave, that CoV will lose people too, and that bodes ill for both games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if the people that leave actually play both games and not just heroes. Some people do only play villains.

[/ QUOTE ]
And they are a minority. Outnumbered by those who play both sides.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure. Go ahead. Continue to believe that no viewpoint but your own is valid. You're right and there's no possibility you could, maybe, be wrong. After 30 pages of stubbornly hashing the same issues over and over again, you've earned the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto. But it's not actually about being right or wrong, it's about personal opinion of which everyone is entitled. If you don't agree you really don't need to be in the thread at all because you aren't going to convince anyone to change their mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But there are opinions, and then there are facts. It's a fact that the Devs lacked the resources to do everything they wanted to do with every issue last year. I can remember Positron posting about how they would start planning each issue with a big list of things they'd like to do, then slowly narrow it down to the stuff they could actually cram into the issue and still get it out on schedule. In a situation like that, does it not make good business sense to focus your limited efforts on producing a product that's going to please the greatest amount of your customers?


[ QUOTE ]
Instead of keeping up the momentum in order to draw players to it they gave almost all of its unique features to the blue side too. If it was up to some people here the blue side would have everything the red side does so that they would never have to play an evil villain at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really fail to see why playing "keep away the good stuff from the other side" is a good idea.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, the devs barely upkeep CoV, not keep it innovative. Rather than merge the two worlds and keep adding cross content I'd rather they break the two apart and run them as separate games with separate dev teams. Charge a separate subscription fee. At least that way CoV might get the attention it needs and deserves.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or maybe the aforementioned "both sides" players might decide they'd like to save $15 a month and drop CoV, then the whole thing crashes and burns. You never know.

But I don't think that will happen any more than I think the games will be merged, so it's kind of moot.

[ QUOTE ]

I really fail to see why playing "keep away the good stuff from the other side" is a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption is that, if you take all of the things CoV has that are considered better and grant them to CoH as well, then the population will shift even more dramatically in CoH's favor and leave primary villain players even harder up (both for seeking groups, and in the "bigger side gets more dev attention" argument). And, while it is only an assumption, I can't say with confidence that it is without merit.

This becomes especially true if nothing flows CoH -> CoV in return. Of course, two much flowing in both directions just homogenizes both sides, and personally I don't think thats a particularly good thing either.

[ QUOTE ]
And here we go with the same old tired [censored] yet again. Sky repeats the failed circular logic. Mirai denounces a point that hasn't been made.

Nobody wants to see Heroes get shafted. But a 60/40 balance, or a 75/25 balance, still gives heroes plenty new to do and helps fill the obvious, glaring gaps in CoV.


[/ QUOTE ]

I addressed your point exactly. You think the devs should put a greater balance on CoV. I noted that the devs intend an even split on new development, and expressed my satisfaction of the devs' stated intent.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I really fail to see why playing "keep away the good stuff from the other side" is a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption is that, if you take all of the things CoV has that are considered better and grant them to CoH as well, then the population will shift even more dramatically in CoH's favor and leave primary villain players even harder up (both for seeking groups, and in the "bigger side gets more dev attention" argument). And, while it is only an assumption, I can't say with confidence that it is without merit.

This becomes especially true if nothing flows CoH -> CoV in return. Of course, two much flowing in both directions just homogenizes both sides, and personally I don't think thats a particularly good thing either.

[/ QUOTE ]
In a recent discussion about the popularity (or lack thereof) of Hamidon raiding, BAB posted something to the effect that using rewards to get people to play through something they don't really enjoy playing through is not good game design.

By that same logic, making someone play as a villain to experience something fun is not good game design, especially when using it specifically as a carrot to get people to play villain side is your only justification. If someone doesn't want to play a villain just to experience X, why force them when you can allow their hero to experience Y, which is the equivalent of X?

Now, I think that some fun things should remain seperate, as long as they're specific to the side of the game they're on. You think it's fun to beat up Statesman in the game? Going to have to play a villain to do that. Want to smash up Paragon City instead of protect it? Again, have to be a villain.

[ QUOTE ]

In a recent discussion about the popularity (or lack thereof) of Hamidon raiding, BAB posted something to the effect that using rewards to get people to play through something they don't really enjoy playing through is not good game design.

By that same logic, making someone play as a villain to experience something fun is not good game design, especially when using it specifically as a carrot to get people to play villain side is your only justification. If someone doesn't want to play a villain just to experience X, why force them when you can allow their hero to experience Y, which is the equivalent of X?

Now, I think that some fun things should remain seperate, as long as they're specific to the side of the game they're on. You think it's fun to beat up Statesman in the game? Going to have to play a villain to do that. Want to smash up Paragon City instead of protect it? Again, have to be a villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

The devs can't "force" you to play one side or the other just because there's a smidgen of content there that you think you'll enjoy. Only you can do that to yourself. And frankly, the less uniqueness to each side, the worse both sides become IMO. If the only difference between the two sides becomes textures and mission text, what is the point of having two different sides, really?

And no, I don't consider being able to fight Statesman in and of itself to be "unique content" It plays more or less the same way any other AV/Hero encounter does (though Statesman *is* a cheap *******, what with that lightning bolt...)

[ QUOTE ]
The devs can't "force" you to play one side or the other just because there's a smidgen of content there that you think you'll enjoy. Only you can do that to yourself. And frankly, the less uniqueness to each side, the worse both sides become IMO. If the only difference between the two sides becomes textures and mission text, what is the point of having two different sides, really?

And no, I don't consider being able to fight Statesman in and of itself to be "unique content" It plays more or less the same way any other AV/Hero encounter does (though Statesman *is* a cheap *******, what with that lightning bolt...)

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm just going to be stubborn on that point, because I really see it as poorly justified to try and maintain an illusion of "uniqueness" among the games when they use the same mechanics. The only thing that's really different is the way the different ATs play.

In my opinion, if you come up with something that's fun to do, it should be given to everyone, regardless of what side they play on. That's been the Devs' mission from day one - make the game fun to play.

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, if you come up with something that's fun to do, it should be given to everyone, regardless of what side they play on. That's been the Devs' mission from day one - make the game fun to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great! I'm going to log onto my villain now and do the TF to get the witch's hat, then I'm going to swap over to my villain EAT, oh wait.

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, if you come up with something that's fun to do, it should be given to everyone, regardless of what side they play on. That's been the Devs' mission from day one - make the game fun to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need a crystal ball to know which side of the fence YOU play on, do I....?

You will maintain this attitude as long as the developers give your interests the lion's share of their attention. Were you on the other side of the fence, you'd.... but why waste my time stating the obvious, which has been repeated more than once in other threads?

I'd really, honestly respect you more if you came right out and said, "I hate CoV, I don't want the developers paying any attention to it and I hope they pull the plug on it any day now. And they can give me all the goodies when they do. Yay!"

That would be rude, but honest.

If these two games were "the same," as you keep implying.... you'd be a tidge less worried about making sure the stuff you like got the lion's share of the attention. But that's not how it works, is it?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I disagree that giving heroes safeguards was a mistake. It was a smart move.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a smart move, if you enjoy being bored to tears. Hah, for ONCE heroes get the short end of the stick. I'm lovin' it.