Archetype Popularity Analysis (repost)

Arcanaville · 07-22-2009 03:19 PM

The original version of this post got munched by the forum grues, and a number of people have asked me to repost it since. Unfortunately, I forgot to keep a copy, but fortunately I've been able to reconstruct it from google caches and my original data spreadsheets. In particular, it seems to be the only remaining source for the numbers that BaB posted last year, because *his* posts were also expunged.

Anyway, I haven't updated or modified (as far as I know) the original content: I'm just reposted for reference purposes. Note that some of this post has been somewhat superceded by changes to the game since BaB's numbers and my post were posted (such as stalker and dominator changes).

-----[Repost Follows]-----

A while back BaB posted some datamining numbers that I plugged into a spreadsheet and then promptly forgot about. I decided to blow the dust off of it in response to a suggestion that tankers might need attention because of their apparent lack of popularity. I've decided to analyze the given numbers in general, just to see what they say.

I should point out a disclaimer first: even with the numbers BaB provided, the number of data points I possess is limited, and therefore I'm exercising substantial judgement in interpreting the information. But I believe within that limit, my analysis is fairly sound.

First, I'll reproduce BaB's numbers:

Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Active since beginning of 2008
Arachnos Widow 1.04
ArachnosSoldier 1.08
Warshade 1.24
Peacebringer 1.71
Dominator 4.8
Stalker 5.77
Corruptor 8.41
Defender 8.87
Mastermind 8.96
Brute 9.08
Tanker 9.71
Controller 10.58
Scrapper 13.71
Blaster 15.04

Last active since Issue 12 golive (may 20, 2008)
Warshade 1.32
Arachnos Widow 1.56
ArachnosSoldier 1.6
Peacebringer 1.82
Dominator 4.62
Stalker 5.5
Corruptor 8.27
Mastermind 8.49
Brute 8.71
Defender 8.96
Tanker 9.52
Controller 11.27
Scrapper 13.48
Blaster 14.88

Logged in since 8-1-2008
Warshade 1.43
ArachnosSoldier 1.76
Arachnos Widow 1.78
Peacebringer 1.95
Dominator 4.54
Stalker 5.24
Mastermind 7.86
Corruptor 8.18
Brute 8.27
Defender 9.31
Tanker 9.5
Controller 12.15
Scrapper 13.32
Blaster 14.71
</pre><hr />

Numbers are all percentages. (there is one more table, which I will get to later)

Now, here's my version of that data, tabulated by archetype and date:

Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Archetype Jan 1 May 20 Aug 1
Warshade 1.24 1.32 1.43
Arachnos Widow 1.04 1.56 1.78
ArachnosSoldier 1.08 1.6 1.76
Peacebringer 1.71 1.82 1.95
Dominator 4.8 4.62 4.54
Stalker 5.77 5.5 5.24
Corruptor 8.41 8.27 8.18
Mastermind 8.96 8.49 7.86
Brute 9.08 8.71 8.27
Defender 8.87 8.96 9.31
Tanker 9.71 9.52 9.5
Controller 10.58 11.27 12.15
Scrapper 13.71 13.48 13.32
Blaster 15.04 14.88 14.71
</pre><hr />

Now, a couple of things stand out just from the static tables. The first is that its pretty obvious heroes are more popular than villains in terms of characters logged in (and presumably played). The second is that there appear to be a very distinct set of more popular verses less popular archetypes for heroes: scrappers and blasters appear to be much more popular.

But looking at the population percentages as they change over time, something else becomes apparent: there are definite population shifts occuring. They are relatively small in magnitude, but large enough - and systematic enough - to be unlikely to be random statistically-insignificant fluctuations.

One thing that struck me as interesting is that HEAT/VEAT archetypes all appear to be increasing in popularity over time. That is not inconsistent with the fact that they have unlockable requirements: you have to have a level 50 just to play them, and the devs have stated in the past that across the playerbase as a whole, level 50 characters are not common. Every single epic, even the very long-standing ones, increased in relative popularity over time. I'm not surprised the VEATs are increasing in that manner. I'm slightly surprised the HEATs are still increasing in that manner.

Conversely, [u]all[u] villain archetypes decreased in popularity over time. Now, that might be seen as a potential problem: it could suggest an unhealthy diminishing of the red-side game. And in fact, in some senses (zone population, for example) it probably is. But there is another perspective that might be valid. First, here's a table that shows EATS vs Villains vs Heroes:

Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Archetype Jan 1 May 20 Aug 1
EATs 5.07 6.3 6.92
Villains 37.02 35.59 34.09
Heroes 57.91 58.11 58.99</pre><hr />

Intriguingly, Villains are not being scavenged by Heroes, but rather by moreso EATs: Heroes are relatively stable as a percentage of all CoX characters, but players are shifting from Villains to EATs. What's interesting about that is that the net effect is not villains to heroes, or villains to VEATs, but also villains to HEATs, which is interesting because that represents an unusual cross-over: red-side to blue-side, but not to actual heroes. I'm theorizing here that heroes are the "base" starting point for the majority of CoX players, and that the population shift is mostly shuffling around the alternatives to hero archetypes: in a sense, villains are psychologically a form of EAT that doesn't need to be unlocked: its an "alternative" choice. The percentage of players choosing to play "alternatives" is roughly stable.

If my theory is correct, then its possible that the devs themselves undermined villains by creating the EATs (although that would be a retrospective statement in the case of the HEATs): Villains, HEATs, and VEATs might be all competing for the same pool of players (or more generally, player attention span across all players). Since January 1, 2008, Villains have given up 1 percentage point of their population ratio to Heroes, but 2 percentage points to the EATs (a word of caution here: these are normalized numbers, and do not account for actual total numbers of player-characters increasing or decreasing over the time period, so when I say Villains gave up 1 percentage points of the their population ratio, I'm saying nothing about actual numbers of players giving up playing villain characters, which could be a totally different percentage number).

Now, because EATs, Heroes, and Villains are all changing in relative population, its not easy to see directly how the individual archetypes are changing relative to each other within their types. Here are two tables, one of which shows the trend in hero archetypes relative to each other, and the other showing trends in villain archetypes relative to each other:

Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Defender 15.32 15.42 15.78
Tanker 16.77 16.38 16.10
Controller 18.27 19.39 20.60
Scrapper 23.67 23.20 22.58
Blaster 25.97 25.61 24.94

Dominator 12.97 12.98 13.32
Stalker 15.59 15.45 15.37
Corruptor 22.72 23.24 24.00
Mastermind 24.20 23.86 23.06
Brute 24.53 24.47 24.26</pre><hr />

Here we can see the relative population trends on the blue side and the red side. On the blue side, Defenders and Controllers appear to be getting more popular, while Scrappers, Blasters and Tankers less popular. On the red side, Dominators and Corruptors seem to be getting more popular, Masterminds, Brutes and Stalkers are getting less popular.

One thing the numbers can't tell us is just exactly how players are shifting around: are they dumping blasters to play defenders or controllers or both, for example. But there are a few things we *can* say. If Tanker populations were going down and Scrapper populations were going up, we might suggest that the data at least implies a shift from Tankers to Scrappers. But that's not what's happening: Scrapper percentages are dropping faster than Tankers are. While its still possible that players are shifting from Tankers to Scrappers, that could only happen if Scrappers were actually *less* attractive to players playing them than Tankers are to players playing them, causing an even higher percentage of them to be shifting out of them to other archetypes. That seems unlikely to me. What seems more likely to me is that the "support" classes of Defenders, Tankers, and Controllers are gaining overall relative to the primary offensive classes of Blasters and Scrappers, and there is rotation going on within the support classes, with Controllers gaining ground.

But if Blasters have *always* been popular, and Scrappers have also tended to be popular for a long period of time, how could they be in decline? Its possible that this is a new phenomenon: Blasters and Scrappers just happened to start losing popularity with players in the last year. But I find that to be an unsatisfactorilly ad hoc explanation, and I can think of no good reason to explain Blaster/Scrapper exhaustion relative to all other archetypes.

There is another possibility, and it has to do with BaB's last posted data table:

Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Archetypes created since Issue 12
Warshade 1.05
Peacebringer 1.44
ArachnosSoldier 1.55
Arachnos Widow 1.63
Dominator 4.69
Stalker 6.36
Defender 7.82
Corruptor 8.4
Mastermind 8.57
Brute 9.11
Tanker 9.46
Controller 9.62
Scrapper 14.16
Blaster 16.14</pre><hr />

Once again, my way:

Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Archetype Jan 1 May 20 Aug 1 Created
Warshade 1.24 1.32 1.43 1.05
Arachnos Widow 1.04 1.56 1.78 1.63
ArachnosSoldier 1.08 1.6 1.76 1.55
Peacebringer 1.71 1.82 1.95 1.44
Dominator 4.8 4.62 4.54 4.69
Stalker 5.77 5.5 5.24 6.36
Corruptor 8.41 8.27 8.18 8.4
Mastermind 8.96 8.49 7.86 8.57
Brute 9.08 8.71 8.27 9.11
Defender 8.87 8.96 9.31 7.82
Tanker 9.71 9.52 9.5 9.46
Controller 10.58 11.27 12.15 9.62
Scrapper 13.71 13.48 13.32 14.16
Blaster 15.04 14.88 14.71 16.14
Defender 15.32 15.42 15.78 13.67
Tanker 16.77 16.38 16.10 16.54
Controller 18.27 19.39 20.60 16.82
Scrapper 23.67 23.20 22.58 24.76
Blaster 25.97 25.61 24.94 28.22

Dominator 12.97 12.98 13.32 12.63
Stalker 15.59 15.45 15.37 17.13
Corruptor 22.72 23.24 24.00 22.62
Mastermind 24.20 23.86 23.06 23.08
Brute 24.53 24.47 24.26 24.54</pre><hr />

Notice: the number of Blasters and Scrappers created since Issue 12 (May 20) is higher, as a percentage of the total, than the number active since Issue 12. I'm going to presume here that any character that is created is "active" for the day that it is created, whether it is played out of the tutorial or not. This means, in effect, that although more Scrappers and Blasters were created since Issue 12, less of them have been played relative to other archetypes between May 20 and Aug 1. The most logical explanation for this is that Scrappers and Blasters are abandoned more frequently than other archetypes. You can't keep making more but playing less unless a lot of them are ultimately being deleted or idled.

This is significant because if Blasters and Scrappers have a higher idle rate (maybe they are played by trial accounts more, or short-term subscribers, or are impulse creations more often) then that means their population numbers are skewed upward to begin with: they include a higher percentage of characters that are not played consistently or at all past a certain point. This could also explain why it appears that Scrappers and Blasters are dropping in popularity: they might not be. One peculiarity of the numbers BaB posted is that they are cumulative numbers: the Jan 1 numbers represent the percentages for all logins from January 1 to about September 1. The Issue 12 (May 20) numbers are for all logins from May 20 to September 1. In effect, the Jan 1 numbers *include* the Issue 12 numbers, because anything logged in from May 20 to September 1 has obviously also logged in from Jan 1 to Sept 1.

This also means those data points are structurally different: the Jan 1 data point represents a larger window of time, the Issue 12 a smaller window of time, and the Aug 1 data point the smallest window of time. If there exist characters that, say, are only logged in once, or only for a week, or only for a limited time before being shelved, they are more likely to show up in long duration windows than short ones: there exists a subtle bias towards "testing" characters in the Jan 1 numbers relative to the Aug 1 numbers. Its statistically possible for that to explain the apparent reduction in popularity for Scrappers and Blasters. If that is true, its possible that if we were to do a more complex datamine of recurring character logins to determine popularity, Blasters and Scrappers could end up being slightly lower than the numbers suggest.

Conversely, anyone suggesting that the increase in Controller popularity comes only from recent powerset proliferation and new characters would appear to be contradicting the numbers. A relatively small percentage of all new characters created between Issue 12 and September 1 were Controllers - less than their overall play percentage. So while a burst of new characters are almost certainly helping Controllers, what matters more is that Controllers appear to have a lower attrition rate. They are gaining ground on archetypes that players are creating more of: that's extremely strong evidence that Controllers, for some reason, retain players much better than average. The same statement can be made for Defenders, and to a slightly lesser extent, Dominators and Corruptors.

Tankers and Brutes, meanwhile, seem to be relatively stable. Their creation rate is very slightly higher than their play rate for the same period of time, which implies that they have a very small (relative) attrition rate. And that small attrition rate ought to lead us to conclude that the visible decrease in population percentage is slightly overstated. And *that* leads me to conclude that, as a percentage of their respective factions, Tankers and Brutes have basically stable population percentages (at least during the period in question). They are neither losing ground nor gaining ground significantly, even though the raw numbers show a slight decline.

If I had to grade the archetypes in terms of their ability to *retain* players, and not just convince them to create characters, as a metric for intrinsic attractiveness, I would rank them as follows:

For Heroes, best to worst:
Controller
Defender
Tanker
Scrapper
Blaster

For Villains, best to worst:
Corruptor
Dominator
Brute
Mastermind
Stalker

And in particular, the archetypes that have *exceptionally difficult* times retaining players appears to be Scrappers, Blasters, and Stalkers.

My take on this: Blasters and Scrappers are the most intrinsicly closely identified with superpowered characters in beginning player's minds, and there is a more subtle but still measurable bias towards them conceptually even for experienced players. They are more likely to be rolled purely on the basis of evocation of the name, without regard to how they've actually been designed in the game. They are thus much more likely to fail to live up to expectations. On the other hand, Defenders, Controllers, and Tankers do not trivially match most players mental genre images: there are less visceral connections to them. They are much more obviously MMO constructs, and the touchstone for them are MMO exemplars. As a result, players who roll them are statistically more likely to base their expectations on MMO conventions, not evocative concepts (I say "expectations" because even if someone creates characters based on character concepts intrinsic to their own imagination, that's a completely separate issue from whether or not they believe they will be able to represent that concept to a certain level of fidelity: character concept-driven players are not necessarily unrealistic in their expectations for the game). As a result, they are much less likely to be surprised or disappointed with their design or performance.

If this is true, then there isn't anything structurally "right" or "wrong" about Blasters and Scrappers that causes them to have very high initial attraction and character creation, and then subsequently lower retention rates and higher drop out rates. Its simply that their evocative concept is more attractive to the very people who would have intrinsicly low retention rates no matter what they played (because their expectations are more likely to fail to match the game design). In other words, the moment the two archetypes were called "Blasters" and "Scrappers" they were probably already locked into this situation. To determine if the net overall play rate of Scrappers and Blasters is unhealthy (unhealthily high or low) I would need more data: at this point I've exhausted what BaB's statistics can tell me in this regard.

That is hero side. I believe its much less likely that neophytes will jump first into City of Villains before City of Heroes (statistically less likely, not overwhelming certain - we're talking about skews on the order of just a few tens of percent). They are much more likely to set expectations based on the design of the archetypes as presented than external expectations. And in general, the character creation rate never veers very far from the play percentages; heroes are much more widely dispersed, which supports that contention. That makes Stalkers stand out as a very strong exception on the red-side. In a faction that is statistically much more realistic about its general expectations than average, Stalkers have a relatively vast retention rate gap. This suggests that there is a problem intrinsic to Stalkers: they are more attractive on paper than in the actual game among a playerbase that almost always correctly judges how attractive something will be in-game at character creation time (or rather, they get it wrong equally often for every other archetype but Stalkers, where they get it wrong a whole lot more often).

Conclusions.

Overall, I would have to say that the data supports the contention that at the moment hero-side archetypes are probably fine, relative to each other, in terms of player popularity and long-term attractiveness. The highest percentages also have the lowest retention rates, and vice versa. But that's a relatively coarse conclusion: more detailed numbers could demonstrate more subtle population problems, or turn one over that the current numbers are unable to present clearly.

Tankers seem to be the most stable of the five. It might be better if they were stable and higher in representation, but the real gap is probably much lower than an at-a-glance estimate of the numbers would suggest without more detailed analysis (because of the slight overstating skew of Scrappers and Blasters), and its unclear if Tankers are less attractive than Scrappers, or less attractive than other support classes. Without additional data, its impossible to know and subsequently, what changes could affect the situation properly, assuming you wanted to.

Controllers are just plain doing fantastic.

Villains are slowly losing players, which is - or should be - a significant faction concern. But curiously, they are losing only partially to Hero archetypes: they are losing more to EATs of *both* factions. This suggests a strong psychological signal: the devs may have failed to create a competing faction to Heroes when they created Villains: they may have actually accidentally created the largest EAT group of the City of Heroes game. That has long-term implications for the Powers That Be, when deciding how to handle the red-side moving forward, *and* in terms of any future plans they might have for a City of... expansion.

Stalkers need ... something. I'm not sure what they need, and I'm not sure how much of it they did, and without additional data I can't even say with absolute certainty that they even need help. But given only the data I have, something seems off on Stalkers with regard to their design. I'm sure there will be no end to the competing theories here. And perhaps we need more time to let the latest batch of Stalker changes to sink in. But somehow, I doubt they will have a very strong impact on these numbers.

EATs are on the way up, even HEATs. But VEATs are, by any measure, a much more successful venture. The question is, does the quick adoption rate of VEATs imply that they will continue to grow at a significant rate, or do they have a soft cap like HEATs appear to have. And how long it took for HEATs to reach current levels is an unanswered question that would require more historical data.

A note on the analysis: I glossed over much of my analysis to save time and space. These numbers are, by their nature, non-trivial to derive conclusions for (the overlapping nature of the intervals of measurement are a significant complication unto itself). There are often implications that numbers lead to conclusions more directly than they do. I would recommend caution to anyone attempting to duplicate or extend this analysis, and for that matter given the limits on the amount of data I have, I would also be careful claiming stronger certainty than I am. These are judgements not proofs of anything. I believe they are sound and reasonable judgements based on a lot of experience with such analyses, but this does not have the certainty of mathematical calculation. Others could reasonably come to different conclusions. They'd probably be wrong if they disagreed with me of course, but not certainly wrong. Seriously, anyone quoting from this should not say I "proved" anything here: it'll only force me to post a correction.

And there is a big elephant in the room regarding any attempt to analyze population data: they don't distinguish between PvP and PvE activity. That is potentially very significant, but would require more data to determine.

[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.)

m3lon · 07-22-2009 10:38 PM

First post after a Red Name

Prof_Backfire · 07-23-2009 01:18 AM

Redside needs more love. That's not exactly a mystery.

Neeto · 07-23-2009 05:08 AM

Flying PBs are doing nice...
Dom Buff
indirect VEAT nerfs (elusivity)
stalkers play the same as any stalker
blasters play the same as any blaster
there's a sort of base is safe feeling with tanks
Fire/kin for trollers
etc.

Sailboat · 07-23-2009 05:23 AM

When did Day Jobs go live? It may have been after BaB gathered those figures...but I'd think that any determination of "ATs logged in during time period X" would be muddied by Day Jobs, as I now log in all my untouched alts regularly to shift them to new Day Job locations.

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

UnicyclePeon · 07-23-2009 08:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
First post after a Red Name

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice.

Lewis

Random AT Generation!
"I remember... the Alamo." -- Pee-wee Herman
"Oh don't worry. I always leave things to the last moment." -- The Doctor
"Telescopes are time machines." -- Carl Sagan

RasberryRabbit · 07-23-2009 08:38 AM

id be interested to see the VEAT and HEAT population explosion after AE was introduced to the game.

AE farm maps made getting to level 50 possible in a couple hours meaning many players that didnt have a lvl 50, now could get access to epic AT's very easy.

i ran into many people that were farming maps just to get a character to level 50 so they could make a VEAT or HEAT.

i would also like to see the lvl 50 population explosion since the AE was released lol....
im sure the devs cant say that having a lvl 50 isnt a common thing anymore
so that could explain the shift of players to EAT's now that more players have access to them.

Gemini_2099 · 07-23-2009 09:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Redside needs more love. That's not exactly a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I do not understand why stalkers are so unpopular? With the recent changes to stalkers I find them very enjoyable to play with.

Talen Lee · 07-23-2009 09:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Redside needs more love. That's not exactly a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I do not understand why stalkers are so unpopular? With the recent changes to stalkers I find them very enjoyable to play with.

[/ QUOTE ]Early slot crunch, maybe? I know I'm very discouraged with my level 29 stalker, wondering if I should recreate him as a less slot-intensive combination.

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

Aett_Thorn · 07-23-2009 09:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Redside needs more love. That's not exactly a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I do not understand why stalkers are so unpopular? With the recent changes to stalkers I find them very enjoyable to play with.

[/ QUOTE ]Early slot crunch, maybe? I know I'm very discouraged with my level 29 stalker, wondering if I should recreate him as a less slot-intensive combination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, you know, the fact that those numbers were generated before the Stalker changes.

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

Arcanaville · 07-23-2009 10:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When did Day Jobs go live? It may have been after BaB gathered those figures...but I'd think that any determination of "ATs logged in during time period X" would be muddied by Day Jobs, as I now log in all my untouched alts regularly to shift them to new Day Job locations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Day jobs were introduced in Issue 13 which started beta testing in October '08 and went live in December '08. All of BaBs numbers date from August 2008 (the dates are listed with the numbers).

[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.)

BrandX · 07-23-2009 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Redside needs more love. That's not exactly a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's that redside needs more love per se.

I think heroes will always be more attractive to players, because they are heroes.

Then those who do want to be a villain, don't exactly get that feeling.

As one poster also said in another thread a day or two ago...redside contacts make you sound more like a 2 bit punk, than a super villain.

BrandX Future Staff Fighter

The BrandX Collection

_Laxx_ · 07-23-2009 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Redside needs more love. That's not exactly a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I do not understand why stalkers are so unpopular? With the recent changes to stalkers I find them very enjoyable to play with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Old stigma from past "versions" of the Stalker where they really didn't do much other than Assassinate a single target, then flail about trying to do anything else. Many players today can't see how much better they've become since then and still think they're a complete waste to play/invite to teams.

Main Hero : Annilixxion -- Lv50 Blaster
Main Villain : Menkaura -- Lv41 Mastermind
@Laxx
"You will bend to my will, with or without your precious sanity." --Dragon Mage

Winterminal · 07-23-2009 07:27 PM

The original post is fascinating. My thoughts:

-Heroes get more attention because it is the original game, the game opens up to the City of Heroes screen, rather than the City of Villains screen, and as said before, everyone loves a hero. I know when I first joined, my thought process was basically (paraphrased) "Let me see what I can do on CoH, then I'll see what CoV can offer." I'm betting this resonates with many new players.

-Blasters and Scrappers have the greatest Creation rates due to their "High" damage output. Let's be real, most people joining this game are looking to be their own slightly different version of existing superheroes. By the game's standards Ironman, Superman, Wolverine, etc. are all 50s. But the new player doesn't know that. And a "High" damage output sounds (to the 0-experience player) like the best way to replicate those heroes. Of course they quickly learn that the level 1 Claws/Regen Scrapper isn't nearly as ferocious as their Wolverine from their comic books, nor is their Energy/Energy Blaster nearly as durable as Ironman. Which is why I think Arcanaville's thoughts on why those characters are quickly abandoned for others makes complete sense.

-The EATs migrations is quite surprising, to me at least. However, I do have to wonder how how many of those created characters are actually seen through to the end. I myself ran with all speed towards the Kheldians after I got my first hero to 50. I have given the Peacebringer 4 tries already, each to post-level-16, and I have realized that it just won't do what I want it to do. I wonder how many others have had similar reactions.

Thanks Arcanaville! Great analysis.

@Winter. Because I'm Winter. Period.

I am a blaster first, and an alt-oholic second.

Daemodand · 07-23-2009 07:55 PM

Predictions for Issue 16 and beyond (all IMHO):

-Redside population will fall off even more as people take the Archetypes they like and go "home" with them.

-Tankers will become more popular with I16's enhanced difficulty slider (soloing a Tanker with 8 man spawns is very attractive).

-HEATs will decline in popularity as people "replace" them with Hero VEATs.

-Stalkers will increase in popularity as the Heroes get to do to Villains what Villains have been doing to them all these years in PvP zones.

-The overall popularity of PvP (especially zone PvP) will drop off even more as both sides bring the same few Archetypes, homogenizing PvP completely.

Conclusion: Redside needs content very badly to attract players. PvP needs something to stem an ever decreasing popularity (cross-server zones and a zone revamp would do wonders in this regard IMHO). The prognosis for blueside PvE is very good.

The best comics are still 10�!
My City of Heroes Blog Freedom Feature Article: "Going Rageless?"
If you only read one guide this year, make it this one.
Super Reflexes: the Golden Fox of power sets!

WARNING: I bold names.

ChaosExMachina · 07-23-2009 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Predictions for Issue 16 and beyond (all IMHO):

-Redside population will fall off even more as people take the Archetypes they like and go "home" with them.

-Tankers will become more popular with I16's enhanced difficulty slider (soloing a Tanker with 8 man spawns is very attractive).

-HEATs will decline in popularity as people "replace" them with Hero VEATs.

-Stalkers will increase in popularity as the Heroes get to do to Villains what Villains have been doing to them all these years in PvP zones.

-The overall popularity of PvP (especially zone PvP) will drop off even more as both sides bring the same few Archetypes, homogenizing PvP completely.

Conclusion: Redside needs content very badly to attract players. PvP needs something to stem an ever decreasing popularity (cross-server zones and a zone revamp would do wonders in this regard IMHO). The prognosis for blueside PvE is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this except that PVP will be improved by mixing classes because it make it somewhat less unbalanced.

However there are many other things that will still keep people from PVPing until those are addressed, if ever.

Also: hero players can learn that stalker PVP is a lot harder than they thought.

A game is not supposed to be some kind of... place where people enjoy themselves!

Brawlnstein · 07-23-2009 11:58 PM

Just remember that, by Arcanavilles own admittance, there is a lot of her own POV and judgment being thrown in here and that the numbers are a bit hard to draw any really good and proper conclusions from. Not trying to sour the post in any way, just highlighting a real problem that the OP themselves is warning us about.

I never thought of the EATs being their own faction splintering the base of Red and Blue sides, that's some interesting food for thought. Thanks.

Umbral · 07-24-2009 12:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This suggests that there is a problem intrinsic to Stalkers: they are more attractive on paper than in the actual game among a playerbase that almost always correctly judges how attractive something will be in-game at character creation time (or rather, they get it wrong equally often for every other archetype but Stalkers, where they get it wrong a whole lot more often).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious as to what you mean by "on paper", especially considering that I'm reasonably certain that most players (re: the ones that don't crunch the numbers) choose to create characters based on assumed performance based on the interpreted effectiveness and play style of the character/AT based on the name rather than planned effectiveness.

You touched on this with the reason why Blasters and Scrappers seem to have such a comparatively high attrition rate. Could it simply be that the general assumption with Stalkers is that they'll play significantly differently than how players assume they will thanks to the name rather than simply a less effective (from a balance perspective) design? Blasters and Scrappers have a rather obvious high action play style but Stalkers have a less obvious one, especially at the low levels that most players tend to abandon characters at when there are not a whole slew of powers available that make them seem to be anything beyond "low hp Scrapper with stealth". Since the stealth, which, while designed to only be a portion of the ATs functionality, is often assumed to be the primary functionality of the AT by those that don't actually check the numbers, it could easily, and probably often does, take uninitiated players by surprise that stalking isn't quite as important to Stalkers as they assumed it would be, not to mention that the game has a definite AoE bias that further makes Stalkers a good bit less obviously effective.

I don't see it as any particular fault of balance, numbers or any other effect but more so the name evoking a role that only plays a small part in the Stalker's actual play and, if the player actually wants to capitalize one that specific role, CoX isn't really built for. CoX's general solution to hordes of enemies is generally "run in and break their faces" which is directly contradictory to the nominal Stalker role of "tactically ignore the little ones and kill the big one", not to mention the inability to generate rewards from playing in a "stalkerish" manner. The massive difference between expectation and reality (based entirely off of play style rather than balance or performance) is probably the biggest reason for the abnormally high Stalker attrition rate.

Clave_Dark_5 · 07-24-2009 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Redside needs more love. That's not exactly a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I do not understand why stalkers are so unpopular? With the recent changes to stalkers I find them very enjoyable to play with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Old stigma from past "versions" of the Stalker where they really didn't do much other than Assassinate a single target, then flail about trying to do anything else. Many players today can't see how much better they've become since then and still think they're a complete waste to play/invite to teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is still alive and well too. Just yesterday I was in an AE arc when the full team lost a player then the leader said something to the effect of "Oh, it was just the lolstalker." He had a lot of vet badges too.

_Laxx_ · 07-24-2009 12:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Redside needs more love. That's not exactly a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I do not understand why stalkers are so unpopular? With the recent changes to stalkers I find them very enjoyable to play with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Old stigma from past "versions" of the Stalker where they really didn't do much other than Assassinate a single target, then flail about trying to do anything else. Many players today can't see how much better they've become since then and still think they're a complete waste to play/invite to teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is still alive and well too. Just yesterday I was in an AE arc when the full team lost a player then the leader said something to the effect of "Oh, it was just the lolstalker." He had a lot of vet badges too.

[/ QUOTE ]

His loss.

Main Hero : Annilixxion -- Lv50 Blaster
Main Villain : Menkaura -- Lv41 Mastermind
@Laxx
"You will bend to my will, with or without your precious sanity." --Dragon Mage

filcher · 07-24-2009 06:54 AM

Just a personal observation: I find Stalkers, in general, do not add anything to a team dynamic. Most people (myself included) that play Stalkers tend to play solo a majority of the time. When buliding a SF team Stalker is the absolute last AT I would invite and I would hesitate to ever have more than 1. I play, and have played, several Stalker toons and often wonder what my "real" role is on a team...certainly not support (buff/debuff/heal), definitely not agro-control (taunt/hold/slow), and as a damage dealer I find Stalkers lacking for a number of reasons (survivability, AoE, dps). Overall I find Stalkers appealing to a small segment of the population due to their "loner" nature in a game of social interaction.

DMystic · 07-24-2009 10:16 AM

QR

The saddest part of a Stalker's teaming experience is that if the Stalker is doing well the team won't particularly notice that missing Sorcerer or Sapper they were dead before they could become important.

EvilGeko · 07-24-2009 10:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Redside needs more love. That's not exactly a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO it's fundamentally flawed. It's supposed "virtues" make your efforts seem small and unimportant. I shall rejoice when GR allows me to redeem my villains and hopefully start the ATs in Paragon.

The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.

Arcanaville · 07-24-2009 06:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to what you mean by "on paper", especially considering that I'm reasonably certain that most players (re: the ones that don't crunch the numbers) choose to create characters based on assumed performance based on the interpreted effectiveness and play style of the character/AT based on the name rather than planned effectiveness.

You touched on this with the reason why Blasters and Scrappers seem to have such a comparatively high attrition rate. Could it simply be that the general assumption with Stalkers is that they'll play significantly differently than how players assume they will thanks to the name rather than simply a less effective (from a balance perspective) design?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's basically what I mean, more or less. Without being any more specific, what I was saying is that what players expect from stalkers from all information prior to actually making one (manual, in-game information, forum articles, whatever) appears to be different from what they actually get from them. It might be that stalkers perform lower than expected, or it might be that their intrinsic playstyle is different than expected, or some combination of both (it could also be that unique to stalkers, players misjudge what they think they want far more often than any other archetype). But something made players want to make them, then not want to play them, relative to other archetypes.

By "on paper" I didn't literally mean paper calculations: I meant the judgement that players made about the archetype based upon its description rather than based upon playing experience.

[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.)

Arcanaville · 07-24-2009 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Redside needs more love. That's not exactly a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO it's fundamentally flawed. It's supposed "virtues" make your efforts seem small and unimportant. I shall rejoice when GR allows me to redeem my villains and hopefully start the ATs in Paragon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I completely agree with that general sentiment, but I do think that the red side is a little too much "Lawful Evil." And when it isn't Lawful Evil, it usually jumps to Chaotic [censored].

I think the better target for City of Villains should have been "Neutral Selfish." Although after The Dark Knight came out, Bat-[censored] Crazy would have been popular as well.

[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.)