[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think it's better that reward is porportional to the risk. Too far one way or the other isn't good.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I was not a fan of the Hami-farms in the AE, and reported a few arcs for it.
I think that your idea pushes the raids way too far into the risk category, though. As such, it will likely be more of a frustration than anything else to most players.
[ QUOTE ]
The Raids as they are now do the same thing. The only difference would be that now there would be a REASON to participate.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, the only change would be that it could be permanent until the server reset. Right now, if the invasions get in the way of somebody's hunt mission or talking to a contact, they can wait for a few minutes, and it's over. With your idea, they might have to wait hours, or even to the next day, before they can complete what they need to complete.
If people don't want to participate, you shouldn't force them to by allowing them nothing else to do.
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
OK I have an idea.... How about a a second zone i.e. when a zone has to many people the game will start a new zone ala Atlas Park 2... So when there is a Raid it would start Atlas Park RAID. When the warnings come in people that wanted to do the raid can load into the new zone. People that don't want to particpate simply choose Atlas Park. Simple and everyone is happy.
What he's proposing is an answer to one of my biggest complaints in this (otherwise stellar) game. It needs DYNAMIC OCCURRENCES. The way it is.. Raid happens... if heroes fail (falacy, because heroes cannot fail).. then the results are exactly the same. There's no dynamic interaction to the occurrences.
Zombies rise? No heroes bother to put them down? No worries, nothing will happen. Building on fire? No biggie, nothing will happen.
This was one of thoe huge outcries back in the heyday of Ultima Online for chrissakes, that player events didn't have dynamic outcomes.
If I want to ignore that building on fire I damn will better be able to. I shouldn't be forced to partake in any form of anything in this game.
Dynamic yes, forced no.
How are you forced to participate in anything? You don't want to get involved, then you get no credit for the success, and no blame for the failure. I suppose you could say you don't want the event to impact your gameplay at all, but things like the weekend rikti invasion are going to do that anyway with zone X or zone Y goin all Rikti-sky on you and semi-random points.
His idea would force me to participate or log off until the invasions stop.
You didn't really detail your ideas about the fire et al, I was merely preemptively stating that I would be against any idea that forced me to participate rather then simply leave the zone, etc.
And again, as currently implemented, they do get in the way, but they are TEMPORARY inconveniences. If the OP's idea were to go into effect, a person could be shut out of a hunt mission for an entire weekend or longer if they don't have much time to play.
That's an entirely different can of worms than needing to hang out for 15 minutes to complete something.
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
Hmmm did anyone even look at my alternate zone idea?
One of the best things about city of heroes is that it doesn't force itself on people. No one is required to play any particular piece of content, nor is anyone forced to conform to any particular playstyle. We are not forced to PvP if we don't want to. We are not forced to join teams if we don't want to (with a couple VERY rare exceptions). This would change that. Playing the game normally would be nearly impossible if every zone were taken over by rikti, so we would be forced to combat the rikti if we wanted things to get back to normal. And that's even leaving out the fact that during low-load hours on a low-population server, it might not even be POSSIBLE to get enough people together to fight off an invasion.
Forcing a particular playstyle or piece of content on players will NEVER be a good idea, and all the arguments and explanations in the world will never make it one.
I think people are missing that I said this:
[ QUOTE ]
They would have both a limited amount of time to reach and destroy the three sites, and a limited number of troops to do it with (say, 15 minutes and 100 ground troops).
[/ QUOTE ]
The raids WOULD be temporary. The only way they would extend past the time of the initial raid is if no one ever stood up to them. As it is, the raids invariably have 20 or more heroes fighting. I don't forsee many occasions when no one would try to stop the Rikti.
I mean, if the heroes were quick, they might wipe out the Rikti in 5 minutes instead of 15 or more, actually SHORTENING the raid.
There's, what, 10 zones? That means that if no one fought back and the Rikti were left to their own devices, the whole city would be taken over in 150 minutes, and then the NPC heroes would restore order (as someone suggested above). That's just over 2 hours AT WORST, and this is HIGHLY unlikely to happen.
Either way, you'd only see a raid sequence when someone finishes the appropriate task force (perhaps once or twice a month) or during a special event.
[ QUOTE ]
I shouldn't be forced to partake in any form of anything in this game.
[/ QUOTE ]
And if I don't like defeat, I shouldn't have to suffer it? If I don't like waiting to be L50, I should be able to just go straight there? I shouldn't have debt forced on me? I shouldn't be restricted from entering any zone I want? I shouldn't be subject to attacks from street thugs?
These things aren't forced on you, they're the game!
I feel the same way about the raids, as they are or as I've suggested. They're simply part of the game. Sure, you might not like them, but there are doubtless people who don't like the things I mentioned above.
[ QUOTE ]
I feel the same way about the raids, as they are or as I've suggested. They're simply part of the game. Sure, you might not like them, but there are doubtless people who don't like the things I mentioned above.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, what if it was something you don't like. What if they changed the game so that you couldn't progress past level 30 until you had 50 PvP kills, or you couldn't get to level 50 until you had completed all the shadow shard task forces. Those are all part of the game too, so it should be alright to force people to do them, right?
Except that your examples would be persistent.
A better example that's similar might be if they made all the zones PvP enabled, periodically (say, an invasion from the Rogue Isles, or a Mind Control device or something). As I say, it wouldn't be something I'd enjoy, so I'd just leave the zone, or wait it out. I certainly wouldn't say it shouldn't be done if it was something that people seemed to enjoy.
In fact, there are things I hate about the game. For example, I've been DYING to play a Tanker with Blasts, but I'm not able to do so. I have to live with it, because it's part of the game.
[ QUOTE ]
The raids WOULD be temporary. The only way they would extend past the time of the initial raid is if no one ever stood up to them. As it is, the raids invariably have 20 or more heroes fighting. I don't forsee many occasions when no one would try to stop the Rikti.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, since I sometimes play at odd times (like 10 a.m. Eastern) I have seen raids where only a few heroes show up to fight - even in Talos Island on top of the hill. And redside at those odd times of day - even worse.
Granted, there are very few finishing up an LGTF at those times, so the main days when it would happen that there would be very few players on redside or blueside would be mainly during Rikti Invasion weeks or weekends (how many people are on some of the lower pop servers, or even Freedom & Virtue, at 7 a.m. Sunday morning?)- but your suggestion would mean that I am blocked out of playing for up to 2 hours because there weren't many people on, say, Triumph, at non-standard hours.
You seem to be assuming that everyone is only playing at times when this wouldn't majorly disrupt their play for very long - but you would be wrong about that.
Altoholic - but a Blaster at Heart!
Originally Posted by SpyralPegacyon
"You gave us a world where we could fly. I can't thank you enough for that."
[ QUOTE ]
Giant Monsters should roam around making life hell for people.
[/ QUOTE ]
If that's what your stance on what good design is, I feel I can safely say this: go to hell.
No
frikkin
way!
No frikkin' way am I going to accpet a game mechanic I have no interest in and which is a PAIN to deal with "making life hell" for me just so that you can have your little moment in the sun. Sorry, if you want to fight giant monsters, go fight giant monsters. I do NOT want to. I don't care if they gave me the moon and the stars. I don't care if fighting one freed me from next month's subscription fee. I don't care if fighting one caused people to come to my door and give me duffel bags full of money. I will NOT fight giant monsters.
I
will
not!
Wrap your head around this, let it sink in, and now tell me how GOD DAMN FORCING ME to fight giant monsters, or fight off Rikti raids or frikkin' do anything I choose not to, is good for me. And make it a good answer, not "just because you should." The game, as it currently is, is very user-friendly, letting us pick and choose our battles, fight what we want, when we want to, do what we want, not do what we don't want and generally have our way with things. If you don't like things like this, then get the hell off my lawn and stop suggesting changes that yank me out of my game and into your idea of how I should play.
You want to make the game better? Fine. Good for you. Go for it. But make sure that you don't break things for other people in the process, and quit trying to dictate how people should play and what people should do.
[ QUOTE ]
Players are penalized for losing as it is. We get debt. We can be defeated. We can fail to defeat Lusca. Doing so means debt. We can fail to put out the fire, witht he same penalty.
[/ QUOTE ]
Debt was pushed back from level 5 to level 10, then halved inside instances, then reduced across the board, then experience gains were increased and debt reduced again, then patrol experience was introduced which eats at your debt when you're offline and with which you pay when you fall, rather than getting debt. Seems to me that the only "penalty" in the game has been systematically reduced into a meaningless metric, EXACTLY where it should be. Punishment and penalty for playing a game wrong is the worst, most repugnant concept in the gaming industry, and the evil legacy of a time when games had to make you stuff more quarters in the machine. Penalty doesn't make people want to win more. It just pisses them off when they lose.
[ QUOTE ]
Granted, the penalty in my suggestion is zone-wide, but as I say, this should inspire people to take part.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it won't "inspire" people to do anything other than move to another, non-raided zone, or speed through the raid and get to their missions. Failing that, it will "inspire" them to log off, go play something else, and not return until the invasion weekend is over. This is a game. It's supposed to be fun. Penalty is NOT fun, nor is the threat of penalty any more entertaining. In fact, the most fun times I've had have been with people who laugh at debt and play the game for the adventure.
If you want to design a good event, design it by making people want to participate, not by making people afraid of what might happen if they DIDN'T participate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
[ QUOTE ]
Except that your examples would be persistent.
A better example that's similar might be if they made all the zones PvP enabled, periodically (say, an invasion from the Rogue Isles, or a Mind Control device or something). As I say, it wouldn't be something I'd enjoy, so I'd just leave the zone, or wait it out. I certainly wouldn't say it shouldn't be done if it was something that people seemed to enjoy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now we get into the hypocrisy of your argument. You wouldn't want to be forced into doing PvP (which was what I had originally suggested) and I don't want to be forced into doing rikti raids. If they changed the raids the way you suggest, I may be forced to choose between only 2 options, partake in a rikti raid, or don't play the game. That is not a choice I should EVER have to make.
I gotta love how no one even commented on what I or almost anyone else in here suggested but instead went on with railing against the OP's suggestion despite all us others suggesting ways to improve it.
Also to the people talking about risk vs reward and the proposed new raids being too much of the former and not enough of the latter, what if in addition to everything else that's changed, they made the rikti in the new raids give gauranteed vanguard merits to people with the badge, like the ones in the mothership do?
Wouldn't be massively too much reward since merits aren't tradable and there's not that much you can get with them, but it'd be a nice alternative to having to having to either do ship raids or spend forever farming rikti missions for your costume bits, salvage bags, weapons and temp pets.
[Admin] Emperor Marcus Cole: STOP!
[Admin] Emperor Marcus Cole: WAIT ONE SECOND!
[Admin] Emperor Marcus Cole: WHAT IS A SEAGULL DOING ON MY THRONE!?!?
I still think that that is far too little reward for the potential risk of this system. Like you said, the Vanguard merits don't net you much in the long term. There is a finite amount of stuff that you can purchase with them. If that was given, in addition the Ultimo_'s idea, then you've still got all of the problems associated with the idea.
There was a poster above (sorry, I forget who said it right now, coffee hasn't kicked in yet, my apologies) who pointed out that if you play at odd times of the day, when few people are on, and a raid occurs, the chance that you can push it back becomes very small. Since this would lead to other zones being attacked, you'd slowly have fewer and fewer zones that you could access safely.
Then, as more people logged on, they might find the entire city overrun, through no fault of their own, with no ability to speak with contacts safely or do any hunt missions. They only way around this would be to fight back. There wouldn't be an option at that point. So, you would be forced to partake in the raids, whether you wanted to or not. If you're lower than level 35, good luck, because you can't get vanguard merits yet, but all the risk is still there. Either that, or you have to wait until tomorrow after the server reset, and hope that the people on in the mornings can fight them off this time.
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
I really like this idea but i think it should only happen on invasion weekends. And i want there to be conciquices if you don't help,not this "if i don't want to do it,i should't have to" mentality,it will only be on the invasion weekends guy,come on.
ALTERNATE ZONE SPAWN LIKE WHEN A SERVER IS OVER THE POPULATION CAP!!!!! SIMPLE SOLUTION!!!! YOU DON"T WANT TO DO IT GO TO THE NON RAID ZONE!!!!
Ok I used my big voice..... maybe people will hear what I think is the solution to the problem with an otherwise awesome idea.
It just seems...unnecessary.
[ QUOTE ]
ALTERNATE ZONE SPAWN LIKE WHEN A SERVER IS OVER THE POPULATION CAP!!!!! SIMPLE SOLUTION!!!! YOU DON"T WANT TO DO IT GO TO THE NON RAID ZONE!!!!
Ok I used my big voice..... maybe people will hear what I think is the solution to the problem with an otherwise awesome idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, the idea itself isn't that needed. IF it was put in, then I think that your idea would be necessary. However, that doesn't mean that I agree with the initial idea, and if I can argue against that, then your idea isn't really needed either. That's the only reason I wasn't commenting on it before.
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
Samuel_Tow:
Ok, chill out. We're just discussing an idea here.
There has to be consequences for failure. HAS TO BE. If I play hockey, they don't call goals back because I don't like being scored on.
The Giant Monsters and the Raids and all the other aspects of the game are there to be THREATS for the players to overcome. If they stand off in a corner, they don't threaten, and therefore are pointless.
When I say they should be "Making Life Hell" I mean GMs should be wandering around, randomly attacking things. This would easily be avoided, but would at least garner some attention and provide a reason to take the GMs out.
Tell you what, I'm being forced to play characters I don't like. I want Tanker with blasts, but I can't have it. I want Shivans, but I have to risk PvP to get them, and I don't like it. Maybe the devs shouldn't have added PvP at all, people might not like being forced to do it. And tell you what, maybe there should be no debt, and the foes should not fight back. People might not like it. They could be defeated, which people don't like.
Your position is ridiculous.
What I've suggested is not a serious change, and might even serve to make the raids SHORTER, so I still can't see why you're complaining. You wouldn't be any more forced to do anything than you are right now.
Firespray:
I don't appreciate being called a hipocrite. I've not said anything to warrant it.
I made an analogy. You don't want to be forced into raids. I don't want to be forced into PvP. If my suggestion was intended to make zones PvP zones temporarily, I wouldn't want to take part, but I WOULD NOT deny it to other people if they wanted it.
You might be forced to choose going to another zone and continuing playing, waiting out the raid or participating in it. As I keep saying, there's nothing NEW here. The raids would be VERY unlikely to go longer than 15 minutes, and might even be SHORTER.
Do you leave the game when there's a 30 minute raid in Talos (I don't know why the raids there are so much longer than other ones...)?
Aett:
Even if there was a single player on the server, he could stand guard over one of the three defense points and stop the raid all by himself. All he'd have to do is hold out for 15 minutes (well, 25 minutes, as the rikti would get extra time for destroying the other two defenses), and the raid would end.
Logging in to a controlled city could pose a problem. The idea that the zones be "conquered" might be revised, it was just the first thing that occurred to me.
What if, instead of conquered zones being raid zones, it instead replaced all normal spawns with Rikti spawns. That is, they wouldn't be beaming in, so you could still talk to contacts normally. Only hunt missions would suffer, and they're fairly few and far between. Of course, you could ADD rikti spawns, so the regular spawns would be there, AND the Rikti would too.
Starchild:
It's not a zone event if it's not in the zone. One of the main attractions of the raids is that they involve active zones and are not instances.
You know, the more I look at my response to Aett, the more I like it. Here's the amended idea.
Change the initial raid as I described before. The Rikti come in and attack the three targets. If they succeed, the raid moves on to an adjacent zone, and the zone they were just in becomes "conquered."
"Conquered" zones will have three rikti control points for the heroes to attack. Destroying them would return the zone to normal, and the raid would stop.
While conquered, the zone would behave normally, however raid-style Rikti would spawn in the normal spawn points, IN ADDITION TO the regular spawns.
Thus, wherever normal foes are spawning, the Rikti are spawning there too (and likely attacking the regular spawns).
This would allow those doing hunts to do them, though they would risk having to fight a few rikti here and there, and it would allow people that need to talk to contacts the freedom to do so, all while maintaining the sense of being in a warzone.
NOW what do you think? Does that satisfy everyone?
No it won't people are going to say the same thing they have been saying about not wanting to be impacted, so thats why I proposed the whole "Zone 2" idea.
If reward is going to be higher than risk, risk is still involved. Besides, the idea that it's better if reward exceeds risk is not always true either. I've been on Farms (not by choice) with floating green balls that don't even attack. There's no risk, TONS of reward, but NO FUN. Thus, I don't think of it as worthwhile. But then, that's me. Obviously, some people liked it. Personally, I think it's better that reward is porportional to the risk. Too far one way or the other isn't good.
[ QUOTE ]
You'd be forcing people to clean up the Rikti before they could do any hunt missions, or possibly even talk to a contact safely. If there's not enough people on at that time, or if they are on a support character that isn't on a team, they're likely to get massacred if they try to remedy this situation.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Raids as they are now do the same thing. The only difference would be that now there would be a REASON to participate.
The carrot would depend on who's playing. For me, the carrot would be the more immersive fun of the raid. For you, it might be the opportunity to get it out of the way quickly.