The MA is content like the costume creator is content- whether it adds to your enjoyment or not depends on how much customization means to you.
I like it. Doing goofy things like saving the Stanley Cup from angry Leafs fans is a fun change of pace.
I agree with Aett_Thorn a bit. It does sound like you're looking for more of a base/mechanical change to the game.
I do think the addition of custom critters had at least livened things up since you don't get the same foes every time you try a different arc. Although the critters didn't come directly from the devs, they've given the tools to the players allowing us create them. That certainly qualifies as a structure change.
Back to the subject thread. Ranged powers as a secondary on Tanks as they stand in CoX just seems counter intuitive to me. Unless there was a way within the game mechanics to be able to do what I would call knock forward, bringing the foes closer instead of pushing them away, some armor set powers/bonuses wouldn't be as worth while. Consume and Dark Regeneration need foes within the AoE to be effective. All your damage auras wouldn't be as necessary if you could keep your foes at bay with kb typical in ranged attacks. Invincibility's resistance boost, Shield Defense's AAO damage boost, and Willpower's Regen boost require foes to be in range to be more effective. Having taken a blaster to lvl 50 I do know how quickly those mobs will come after you once you've aggro'd them, but that doesn't mean they will close into melee range, which is typical range for the above powers.
When I do use what few ranged attacks I have on my tanks it's usually as my alpha (such as fire ball) before leap into a group, or as a "hey where do you think you're going" tagging a runner or someone that has aggro'd on another teammate and my taunt isn't up.
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
What do you want to see, Kruunch?
Personally, I want to see more tilesets and branching missions, off the top of my head. Also a form of PvP where players can enter instant missions and compete over the same or conflicting goals.
Are those the sorts of things you are referring to?
Especially, what would you like to see out of the alignment system?
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
Again, CoH: GR should prove you wrong there.
We have Devs devoted to keeping the current material up-to-date, and as bug-free as they can make it, along with adding new content within the current systems. Then we have a different set of Devs (maybe still reporting to the main ones, but most likely not the same ones) working on Going Rogue, which has new systems and diversity of content in it.
[/ QUOTE ]
We don't exactly know that for certain. I hope that's true, but there's no evidence of major system additions to the GR expansion (separate from the side-switching one itself).
We know the devs hired some presumptively hot-shot programmers to work on stuff for CoH, but I don't know if its been explicitly stated that they are working on new game systems for GR. Also: I'm always worried when someone is identified as, or worse self-identifies as a "high powered programmer." Most of the "high-powered programmers" I've met were just high. I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with though.
Of course, if any of those type-R programmers wanna tell me how long it takes to eat a donut...
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
The MA is content like the costume creator is content- whether it adds to your enjoyment or not depends on how much customization means to you.
I like it. Doing goofy things like saving the Stanley Cup from angry Leafs fans is a fun change of pace.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhh but this is my point exactly .... yes it's content. It's just not diverse content. Again .... more is not necessarily better.
I will say this for the MA system ... whether the devs (or you guys) are conscious of this or not, it is the push for the next-gen MMOGs (player created content). While I don't like how CoH has executed this particular version of it (and to be fair I don't DISLIKE it either) it does open up some extremely interesting avenues, both for CoH and MMOs in general.
Sadly I'm of the opinion CoH will never realize the full potential of their MA system. However I do believe it will grow from what we have today and in a positive fashion.
These of course are only my opinions.
[ QUOTE ]
What do you want to see, Kruunch?
Personally, I want to see more tilesets and branching missions, off the top of my head. Also a form of PvP where players can enter instant missions and compete over the same or conflicting goals.
Are those the sorts of things you are referring to?
Especially, what would you like to see out of the alignment system?
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh good lord burn the tileset mentality already. The two most popular MMOs to date (EQ and WoW) have some very defining features in common with one of the primary ones being that zones and dungeons are very distinctive. CoH started off promisingly with some of its hazard zones (the original Faultline in particular) but truly failed to capitalize on their original creativity.
Branching missions I would like to see and I believe that this is one of the attempts being made with GR. What I especially like about branching missions is that it forces the player to pay attention to the story and more importantly, actually become invested in it if implemented correctly. That would be a *very* good start to content diversification.
A lot of what I would like to see (and not just in CoH but in MMOs in general) I've outlined in my wordier post in this thread already. But to recap the main points for CoH specifically:
1) The detective system that was discussed oh so many years ago. A comic book style, non-combat system method of advancement via storylines, puzzles and problem solving. Basing this type of system on a dynamically generated pieces of key content (the actual puzzles, problems and forks) to keep the storylines fresh and the cheat sheets to a minimum.
2) Stepped content progression. Introduce tougher content meant for IO set enhanced player groups (but not going above the one group dynamic). Accordingly add in additional IO sets (stronger ones) that would be needed for future content, etc .... This is meant to broaden the end game and give you more of a reason to continue playing and developing your max level toon.
3) A robust faction system (multi-layered as opposed to the flat system WoW has) that would give access/deny access to certain IO sets and possible future abilities.
4) Add additional player power and enhancement slots as a reward for higher end content (I heard a rumor of additional enhancement slots being considered for a future issue ... anyone confirm that?).
5) Expand the hazard zones to include more influence and more and rarer drops and deny drops and influence to those above and below the level range for those zones (except when exemplared or SK'd). Include within the hazard zones public "dungeons" with rare spawn unique mobs (i.e. Giant Monsters) that yield hamio-esque and/or rare recipe drops. Populate said zones with the tougher mobs of those level ranges.
6) Revert powers in PvP to work identically to how they work in PvE and then "fix" the holes with new PvP IO sets (e.g. an IO or a set bonus that prevents teleportation of self).
7) Add unique IOs (non-sets) that give additional powers or specific effects and make them ultra rare (e.g. an IO that prevents any movement impairing effects (think Ring of Free Action from PnP DnD)).
8) Extend PvP to all co-op zones (would make cross-grouping in co-op zones both more interesting and more realistic from a comic book pov).
I could go on and on but these ideas I've presented are within the scope of the current game, with the current engine (certainly additions would have to be made but the entire engine would not have to be re-written which is paramount to feasibility here). Notice I didn't mention raising the level cap? The game just wouldn't support it as it currently stands.
Sadly I don't think you could go to much further (or even realize everything I've outlined) with the cuirrent game simply from the fact that MMOs tend not to revitalize from a business model perspective.
In other words, if NCSoft was *really* going to capitalize on the past successes of CoH, they would need to start planning on releasing a CoH 2.
[ QUOTE ]
es, it is. Those comics have to worry exactly jack squat about balance. The story tellers can make those characters as powerful or as weak as they want, pretty much on the fly.
[/ QUOTE ]
And how have the devs NOT done this?. We have seen a nerfing of regen three times and a nerfing of fire and invul tanks. Rock has still remained "overpowered" in the sense that its only one shield toggle. Sometimes balance is ignored and concept is favored. I can only think of Rad defenders when I think of concept and imbalance.
[ QUOTE ]
But without doing that, and implementing a system where Tankers can get a decent amount of blasts throughout the game, would lead to problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, through APP's tanks are given a taste, that isn't to say the devs have to bend over backwards for more blasts. I'm not talking about unique new blasting powers, but rather to use the already existing blasting AT's. I'm guessing you don't like change much?, or you like being "neutral" all the time. Asking for a little more isn't bad you know. Especially if its emulating an already emulated platform. Its rather expected.
"If you can make a girl laugh, you can make her do anything"
"You're like Giraffe's, the way you look down on me, with your vegetarian scorn."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
es, it is. Those comics have to worry exactly jack squat about balance. The story tellers can make those characters as powerful or as weak as they want, pretty much on the fly.
[/ QUOTE ]
And how have the devs NOT done this?. We have seen a nerfing of regen three times and a nerfing of fire and invul tanks. Rock has still remained "overpowered" in the sense that its only one shield toggle. Sometimes balance is ignored and concept is favored. I can only think of Rad defenders when I think of concept and imbalance.
[/ QUOTE ]
And this is done on the fly? Or after datamining and determing that a set is either outperforming or underperforming other sets for that AT? You know, trying to achieve some semblance of balance.
Do you go into a mission and have your power level adjusted to make story-sense with the enemies? Do you fight an AV, only to be defeated, and come back into the mission twice as strong so that you can take it out? You know, like in some comics and comic-book-movies, where the storyteller gets to do whatever he wants with the hero's power level at any time? No? Wonder why not?
Balance changes are just that: balance changes. They will occur over time. sometimes, sets get brought down, sometimes, they get bumped up. But let's not confuse that with having a completely mutable power level that is changed because the writer has a hangover or just broke up with his girlfriend.
Stone Armor only needs one armor on at all times, for a net endurance savings of about 0.4 end/second, depending on primary. For that, it suffers -Spd, -Dam, and can't jump over the most flimsy rope or curb. It also gets a lot of survivability out of it, but there are penalties to turning it on. If there weren't, it would be imbalanced, but it's not. Radiation Emission is a strange beast. It can do everything, but isn't the best at anything. The fact that it CAN do everything, though, is what makes it popular. I have a level 40 Energy/Rad corruptor, and I remember a lot of fights being over before I even got my second toggle applied to the enemy. Only against AVs and GMs do they really shine, and other Debuff sets can do just as well there.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But without doing that, and implementing a system where Tankers can get a decent amount of blasts throughout the game, would lead to problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, through APP's tanks are given a taste, that isn't to say the devs have to bend over backwards for more blasts. I'm not talking about unique new blasting powers, but rather to use the already existing blasting AT's. I'm guessing you don't like change much?, or you like being "neutral" all the time. Asking for a little more isn't bad you know. Especially if its emulating an already emulated platform. Its rather expected.
[/ QUOTE ]
Having a few ranged attacks does not equal a full attack chain. Being able to Taunt (the power, that the Tanker secondary would still most likely need to have), and then blast enemies at range, when because of the -range debuff applied to the enemy, you'd take no return fire whatsoever, would be problematic. Tankers are limited in being able to do this right now, for good reason.
But let me ask you this:
Why should Tankers be given blasts to make your concepts be available, instead of Blasters getting Defenses? Should Defenders get some secondaries where they get some MM pets, because there are concepts out there that call for it? Should some Controller secondaries be completely melee attacks? Should Scrappers have some secondaries that contain ranged controls, instead of just armors?
Why should Tankers be able to break their mold, but not other ATs? If you're going to say that it's because there are characters in comics that do more than what Tankers in our game do, I'm sure that you can find some examples of everything I stated above.
I do like change. But I like to see some thought put into the reason other than just "I want it." I was one of the people leading the charge to get Ice Melee buffed. Would I have done that if I didn't like change?
No, I probably wouldn't have. I like change. But I also like balance, and understand the need for it. This idea, to give Tankers more ranged attacks, and at an earlier level, I think would damage AT balance. I will say so if I feel like it. There are changes that I like, and there are changes that I don't like. Don't try to add strawman arguments to the debate saying that I just don't like change. I do. I just don't want changes that I think will completely imbalance an most of an AT.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
You have some good thoughts here.
I like the idea of some kind of non-combat advancement; I can see where it being based on dynamic puzzles being frustrating for a lot of people. I was hoping the Midnight Squad collection 'puzzle' was something like that.
I am not so much into the idea of having the eternally upscaling endgame, though. The idea that you need better and better loot to take on tougher and tougher enemies as the game progresses so long as the elite are the only ones who want it or care. However, it also leads to cheating and grinding as the not-so-skillful, the lazy, or the impatient try to get the shineys also.
There was some thought of being able to slot your powersets themselves as well as individual powers at one point, but I think that idea got rolled into 'set IOs'.
I definitely want to see more non-instanced 'dungeons' and tougher Hazard Zones with more theme and purpose. Like always-open Trials, similar to the PvP zones with their minigames.
I don't think reverting powers to PvE functionality is a good idea; there is a lot that can be leveraged by having it work differently, especially with Dual Build tech. I don;t think all of the differences in how PvP and PvE need to work can e shored up with loot; especially as regards newbies to PvP.
I don't think ALL coop zones need to be PvP; there should be variety here as well: some are, some aren't. More choices, not fewer.
Thanks for posting these ideas again.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
Why should Tankers be given blasts to make your concepts be available, instead of Blasters getting Defenses? Should Defenders get some secondaries where they get some MM pets, because there are concepts out there that call for it? Should some Controller secondaries be completely melee attacks? Should Scrappers have some secondaries that contain ranged controls, instead of just armors?
Why should Tankers be able to break their mold, but not other ATs? If you're going to say that it's because there are characters in comics that do more than what Tankers in our game do, I'm sure that you can find some examples of everything I stated above.
[/ QUOTE ]
Blasters get shields...and might I add the very over powered Force Mastery APP, which many have coined the "tanking blaster APP".
Controllers, get the very "OP" Hibernate from the Ice mastery,
Scrappers and Defenders are the only AT's that don't get over the top, overpowered APP's. Balance is usually achieved through strength of powers. But if you need further proof, see WoW, or EQ, or even the Diablo series. Balance in these games are made by adding new powers that seem overpowered but remain weak in certain areas, being CD(cooldown) or high end/mana usage. Overall the game still remains the same, if anything enemies are given more life.
What I ask is for more blasts, NOT several "I win buttons". Don't assume I want a landslide victory over every mob I run into. Although if I did, I would create a fire/ blaster and inferno my way into easy exp. See where I'm going here?, we all know what moves are overpowered, we see them everyday when we play. And yet the game isn't ruined. Enemies aren't adjusted "on the fly" because a blaster or a scrapper joins the team. Its easy to implement blasting for Tanks, the only "adjusting" needed would be the very blasting powers. The game doesn't need to be revamped to add already existing powers.
"If you can make a girl laugh, you can make her do anything"
"You're like Giraffe's, the way you look down on me, with your vegetarian scorn."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why should Tankers be given blasts to make your concepts be available, instead of Blasters getting Defenses? Should Defenders get some secondaries where they get some MM pets, because there are concepts out there that call for it? Should some Controller secondaries be completely melee attacks? Should Scrappers have some secondaries that contain ranged controls, instead of just armors?
Why should Tankers be able to break their mold, but not other ATs? If you're going to say that it's because there are characters in comics that do more than what Tankers in our game do, I'm sure that you can find some examples of everything I stated above.
[/ QUOTE ]
Blasters get shields...and might I add the very over powered Force Mastery APP, which many have coined the "tanking blaster APP".
Controllers, get the very "OP" Hibernate from the Ice mastery,
Scrappers and Defenders are the only AT's that don't get over the top, overpowered APP's. Balance is usually achieved through strength of powers. But if you need further proof, see WoW, or EQ, or even the Diablo series. Balance in these games are made by adding new powers that seem overpowered but remain weak in certain areas, being CD(cooldown) or high end/mana usage. Overall the game still remains the same, if anything enemies are given more life.
What I ask is for more blasts, NOT several "I win buttons". Don't assume I want a landslide victory over every mob I run into. Although if I did, I would create a fire/ blaster and inferno my way into easy exp. See where I'm going here?, we all know what moves are overpowered, we see them everyday when we play. And yet the game isn't ruined. Enemies aren't adjusted "on the fly" because a blaster or a scrapper joins the team. Its easy to implement blasting for Tanks, the only "adjusting" needed would be the very blasting powers. The game doesn't need to be revamped to add already existing powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
If Controllers and Blasters (and Defenders, for that matter) get defenses from their APPs, and Tankers get ranged attacks from THEIR APPs, isn't that rough balance?
If we are to die, let us die like men. -- Patrick Cleburne
----------------------------------------------------------
The rule is that they must be loved. --Jayne Fynes-Clinton, Death of an Abandoned Dog
Yes.
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters get shields...and might I add the very over powered Force Mastery APP, which many have coined the "tanking blaster APP".
Controllers, get the very "OP" Hibernate from the Ice mastery,
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, and like the above posters, I'd say that they only get those in their APPs, which is where Tankers get blasts, which is apparently the problem that you and Ultimo have, having to wait until that level.
Which is why I asked if they should have SECONDARIES like that. Should Blasters get more defenses in their secondaries? Controllers? Defenders?
Also, I don't know why you think that Hibernate is OP. Even in PvP, it freezes the enemy in place. You can just wait until they have to come out of it. If you were going to beat them before they went all Icey, then you can beat them after they need to stop.
In PvE, Hibernate is a great panic button, but not nearly overpowered.
[ QUOTE ]
Balance is usually achieved through strength of powers. But if you need further proof, see WoW, or EQ, or even the Diablo series. Balance in these games are made by adding new powers that seem overpowered but remain weak in certain areas, being CD(cooldown) or high end/mana usage. Overall the game still remains the same, if anything enemies are given more life.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm...the same is true here, you know. Unstoppable, Hibernate, Inferno, etc., all have either a cooldown period now or a crash which costs a lot. The only one that doesn't have a crash, cooldown, or large endurance cost is Granite (oddly enough, which is the character in your Avatar), and that suffers other penalties, meeting your criteria of remaining weak in other areas.
[ QUOTE ]
Don't assume I want a landslide victory over every mob I run into.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not assuming what you want. I'm telling you what you could do. Just because you say that you don't want that doesn't mean that other people wouldn't take advantage of the system and do just that. Taunt + Large amount of ranged attacks = quickly dead spawn at no risk. You can do this now, it just takes longer because of the relatively short supply of ranged attacks that Tankers get.
[ QUOTE ]
Although if I did, I would create a fire/ blaster and inferno my way into easy exp. See where I'm going here?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. Since Inferno has a long recharge, and drains all of your endurance, I'd say that this would be one of the worst ways to gain XP. You'd be better off just using your regular attacks. Also, since Inferno causes you to go into melee to fire it off, you're putting yourself at more risk each time you use it. I'd say that's pretty balanced. Now, with a Tanker drawing the fire of the enemies, it gets safer to use, but that still won't negate the endurance crash or the recharge.
[ QUOTE ]
we all know what moves are overpowered, we see them everyday when we play.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really? none of the powers that you've mentioned seem overpowered to me. There have definitely been times in the past where powers have been overpowered, but none of them are the ones that you mentioned.
In fact, I'd have to say that there's only one power left that I think is overpowered, and that's only because you can double or triple stack it: Rage. But even then, we've been told that it might be looked at.
Things can appear overpowered here, but they do have drawbacks to their use.
[ QUOTE ]
Its easy to implement blasting for Tanks, the only "adjusting" needed would be the very blasting powers. The game doesn't need to be revamped to add already existing powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't. But pretending like the balance issues would be easy to overcome is naive. The Devs would also need to create whole new sets with these blast powers in them. Even if they copied most of Energy Melee, and replaced a few powers with ranged attacks, you'd still have to spend time creating the new set and dealing with the balance issues that it would create.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Giving armor to Blasters wouldn't be in keeping with the class because both primary and secondary sets are offensive.
Giving Bots to Defenders wouldn't necessarily be inappropriate, but since it's not a simple damage set, replacing a simple damage set with it would be inappropriate.
I did think of allowing ALL melee classes access to the Assault power sets, but I wondered about the balance of it. Scrappers do significant damage, so giving them ranged attacks might step on the toes of the Blasters. It's entering the realm of Tank Magery (ie high damage at range and high defenses). Tankers, with their low damage output, don't have this problem. However, I'll concede that adding extensive ranged attacks to a Tanker might well increase his survivability, as has been pointed out.
Someone suggested adding Energy Blast to Energy melee (since it doesn't get a ranged attack, and most other melee sets have at least one), and I have to say, I like this idea. What about all of you? Could you get behind this idea? What power would you take out to add Energy Blast?
<crickets>
Define "most."
[ QUOTE ]
Define "most."
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. Here is the list of melee sets:
Spines*
Claws*
Super Strength*
Stone Melee*
Energy Melee
Fire Melee
Ice Melee
Battle Axe
War Mace
Dual Blades
Katana
Broad Sword
Dark Melee
Electric Melee
Martial Arts
4 out of 15 is not "most" by any stretch of the word.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Aett, your missing the point here, Don't busy yourself with trying to disprove me, and use some objectivity. Their called new ideas, and as radical as they may seem. The radical ideas are what created MMO's in the first place. You and I have different opinions, fact. But we all want one thing. Change. You can use every opinion you believe to discredit every opinion I believe. Either way we play the game of roundabout. You don't even have a perspective of what my and Ultimo's ideas might actually look like. Take something into consideration.
And yes I know, thats asking alot from people who regular boards, Internet meme reciters, and even people who wish to argue. But I ask for some clarity. And not a swing of the bat every time I throw an Idea into the air. I get it. Its fun shutting people down, but its not exactly a science, especially when someone can just "QFT", or "Truth" their way into anyone's point of view. But Objectivity is still required.
My original point was that while we know we can get APP blasts, their laughable, everyone who gets them knows this. I don't care about hitting 41 or 32. Its the fact of having more than two blasts that I would enjoy. Call it overpowered but power scaling can easily be done. You can say "people will find a way", but has that ever actually hurt the game?, No. I'm a huge fan of the "if it aint broke..." mentallity but, its not about repair, its about addition. You and many others fear change, obvious, but its not a bad idea, in fact its far from, Tankers with blast have already been decided in Champions Online. Is it so "radical" or obtuse to ask for them in CoH?.
What I find funny, is that if the devs actually implemented the idea of tankers with more blasts, people would make a tank immediately just try them out be it for fun or test. We all love arguing over the "what ifs", but when it comes down to it, we rejoice in having something new.
"If you can make a girl laugh, you can make her do anything"
"You're like Giraffe's, the way you look down on me, with your vegetarian scorn."
[ QUOTE ]
I did think of allowing ALL melee classes access to the Assault power sets, but I wondered about the balance of it. Scrappers do significant damage, so giving them ranged attacks might step on the toes of the Blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Scrapper ranged damage modifier is actually very low: 0.5. Its just that none of the Scrapper attacks use ranged modifiers, even the ones with significant range. If they were given unadultered assault sets, they would be doing more damage with melee attacks than blasters (1.125 vs 1.0) but a lot less damage with ranged attacks (0.5 vs 1.125). So much so that I think Scrappers would probably call the situation unfairly low overall and demand a higher ranged modifier.
I honestly would not look forward to having that debate played out, given the wide range of possibilities that the playerbase overall seems to equate with "balanced."
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
While I agree with you on this issue, MMO direction and "vision" (i.e. terms of balancing amongst other things) should not be a collaborative effort with the player base. The more the collaboration, the more diluted the original "vision" will become.
While in some cases this can be good, in most cases you end up with muddied waters.
One of the biggest issues with CoH from its inception was that the original "vision" was to realize a video game format of the 80s comic book popularity. The idea to use the MMO model was purely a business decision (recurring income).
The unfortunate part here was that at some point just before/after release, it was decided that since this was an MMO it should be "balanced" like other MMOs which I think was a very faulty choice. So what the original dev team took the screaming hordes of players' comments as "bugs" that needed to be addressed, really should have spearheaded a new direction for MMOs (particularly this one) that catered to a different crowd rather then those who played EQ or DAoC at the time.
CoH has always been considered "casual friendly" but it wasn't the direction they (the business model) was shooting for originally.
Hindsight being 20/20 n all.
[ QUOTE ]
One of the biggest issues with CoH from its inception was that the original "vision" was to realize a video game format of the 80s comic book popularity. The idea to use the MMO model was purely a business decision (recurring income).
The unfortunate part here was that at some point just before/after release, it was decided that since this was an MMO it should be "balanced" like other MMOs which I think was a very faulty choice. So what the original dev team took the screaming hordes of players' comments as "bugs" that needed to be addressed, really should have spearheaded a new direction for MMOs
*snip*
Hindsight being 20/20 n all.
[/ QUOTE ]
People dismiss that quote I often brandish, with Emmert saying essentially that Tankers were intended to represent the Hulks and Supermen of comics. They also ignore the later interviews where he claims he fought with some of the power guys over giving them more damage.
The but fact is, it was said.
As an example of what you highlight, Tankers as they are currently, in my opinion, are the result of the developers serving the demands of MMO minded players over serving the demands of people wanting the game to be a better super hero game period.
The devs put the emphasis in their their "super hero MMO" squarely on the third word in that phrase and catered to its conventions and considerations at the expense of serving the conventions and considerations of the first two words. And Heaven forbid they attempt all to serve all three words.
So is it any wonder years later which group of people are in the majority playing the game and which left? Or any wonder that it's really hard trying to sell Tanker changes on the basis of making them better represent super hero comic conventions to a group of players who only care about how good an MMO tank they are and can't accept an ideal that's not that?
Rhetorical questions, I assure you.
Striking a balance of which MMO and which super hero/comic book conventions to embrace can be tricky, but in the case of this game, in my opinion the balance point is so lopsided for a number of things that I would scarcely call it a 'balance' at all.
.
[ QUOTE ]
Don't busy yourself with trying to disprove me, and use some objectivity.
[/ QUOTE ]You're objectively talking nonsense in this one sentence.
J_B: As many many many people have explained to you in a variety of ways, Tankers can't be balanced to your vision within a vacuum, no matter how much you post to the contrary.
Incidentally, of what I know of CO, it will not be the life changing event that you think it will. You may want to examine playing console hero games, as they approach closer to what you're asking for.
[ QUOTE ]
Tankers can't be balanced to your vision within a vacuum, no matter how much you post to the contrary.
[/ QUOTE ]
And yet when I propose suggestions on how to achieve this, most people agree that the suggestions are not unreasonable or not worth exploring.
[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, of what I know of CO, it will not be the life changing event that you think it will.
[/ QUOTE ]
At least with CO we have someone attemping a more open and improved power/character creation system. That's more than you can say for CoX's current devs who ignore the problems and limitations of their system and are making little or no effort to improve it.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(doesn't mean it isn't ... I just haven't heard of a whole slew of new devs working on something recently).
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, CoH: GR should prove you wrong there.
[/ QUOTE ]
Historically speaking, the odds are against you. But I hope you are correct.
[ QUOTE ]
We have Devs devoted to keeping the current material up-to-date, and as bug-free as they can make it, along with adding new content within the current systems. Then we have a different set of Devs (maybe still reporting to the main ones, but most likely not the same ones) working on Going Rogue, which has new systems and diversity of content in it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Name the dev team for COH: GR please. I'm really curious to know if it is a totally different team or not (and for that matter ... how many are on it).
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry that you're not happy with the conent that we've been getting, but it is new content. Just because you don't like the format that it's taking doesn't make it not new content.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're just being pedantic. More of the same != new. It's just more.
[ QUOTE ]
IOs and sets added a new way to build characters that can vastly change the way that characters can play.
[/ QUOTE ]
No they didn't. They were a sorely needed reward boost in a system virtually lacking in rewards. However since all content can be completed without having a single member IO slotted means that the reward system (or more appropriately the content progression) is still vastly out of whack (and thusly proving my point).
[ QUOTE ]
The MA allows you to build your own missions within a framework. How you can look at that and say that it's not content baffles me. Sure, the missions still exist within a limited framework, but it allows for a lot of new stories, which is exactly what a lot of people were complaining about before it came out. They were tired of doing the same missions over and over again. Now, we have a whole new system devoted to making new stories, and a lot of them are quite good new stories.
[/ QUOTE ]
People were tired of doing the same *things* over and over, which the MA system hasn't addressed. New bouts of text doesn't cure the content ills (at least for me). The mechanics and style are *exactly* the same. The MA system introduced *new* content only within the scope that creating an MA now is part of the time you spend playing the game (sort of a meta game almost similar to dungeon building in NWN). Speaking of NWN if you want to see what the MA *should* have been ... just look at NWN's original world builder (as buggy as it was) from what .... 8 years ago?
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saying that only new mechanisms within a mission is new content, and that's just not true.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that the quantity of the same ole mission (even with different text) in yet another content patch (in this case the MA) doesn't add to the content of the game in spirit.
So in essence, yes it is true.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately that's not (proven) to be enough to hold the majority of subscriber's attention for more then a few months at a clip.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd also ask you to back this statement up, because I'm betting that you pulled it right from your rear end, to put it delicately. Neither you, nor I, know the average subscriber length here, nor what causes people to leave.
[/ QUOTE ]
And this is where our feelings get bent because heaven forbid someone disparage our favorite time waster.
I know why people don't quit games ... because they're good games.
Are you really going to argue that you don't see a rise in numbers with I14 or that prior to I14 most all of the servers (with the exception of two) were a veritable ghost town?
How many people on your friends list never log on anymore?
that's what I thought.