You know you don't have to do the content with the other side? In fact, I'm sure the only co-op mission that actually requires the other side is the Valentine missions.
New zone - co-op or not - is still a new zone, bustling with story and new sights to explore. Surely that's always a good thing?
"Idealism is such a wonderful thing. All you really need is someone rational to put it to proper use." - Kerr Avon
Myopic Aardvark on Twitter
Plus it is cost effective as well. One zone to give more to do for both sides without having to spend the money to make two zones.
An alternative is to make it a PvP zone with storyarcs for both sides. Problem is that a lot of people don't like the whole PvP thing and will ignore the zone. Just like most people never set foot into the current PvP zones. So even though this could be an exciting thing I am not sure if it would work out.
[ QUOTE ]
You know you don't have to do the content with the other side? In fact, I'm sure the only co-op mission that actually requires the other side is the Valentine missions.
New zone - co-op or not - is still a new zone, bustling with story and new sights to explore. Surely that's always a good thing?
[/ QUOTE ]
It kinda breaks the seperation between Hero and Villian when you overuse co-op. They are two groups, fighting for different goals, yet they seem to always be pulled together to fight a greater threat. Well there is not a greather threat to either of them than themselves.
How can they be a greater threat when we can always beat them? If a hero and villian faced each other in PvP you would see that the match would be longer and tougher than fighting x co-op AV.
[ QUOTE ]
Plus it is cost effective as well. One zone to give more to do for both sides without having to spend the money to make two zones.
[/ QUOTE ]
1. It's a bit lazy when you overuse it, because it's like you're not bothering to spend money on your game.
2. What's the point of making a feature the players won't like just because it saves money?
[ QUOTE ]
Your little rave? You're listening to The Shaman with a few strobes going?
Oubourourous wasn't co-op was it (issue before last). And the midnight arcs are separate, so only Cimorororora was, and that really just has repeatable missions and the tf.
I'm pro-coop as it means more shared content, more interesting team compositions and a bigger pool of toons to team with.
What I would like are zones with more easily spelt names!
[/ QUOTE ]
I can see that you have a good point. But due to Powerset Proliferation more and more ATs are becoming the 'same' as their counterparts. So basically you're just playing the same AT with a different name.
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'm tired of having every issue a new co-op zone. It might just be me, but it's kinda annoying that the game is no longer becoming individual. We should not be spending lots of time working with the other side, I am not saying co-op is bad, it is just becoming overused.
So please take a few issues' break, NC. Most MMOs don't have co-op at all. If people really want to spend time with the other side, why don't they merge the games?
I am sorry for my little rave, but it's getting annoying now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your little rave? You're listening to The Shaman with a few strobes going?
Oubourourous wasn't co-op was it (issue before last). And the midnight arcs are separate, so only Cimorororora was, and that really just has repeatable missions and the tf.
I'm pro-coop as it means more shared content, more interesting team compositions and a bigger pool of toons to team with.
What I would like are zones with more easily spelt names!
[ QUOTE ]
2. What's the point of making a feature the players won't like just because it saves money?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to point out that not everyone would agree with this statement. So perhaps they're putting in a feature that a lot of their players will like.
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise 
; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. What's the point of making a feature the players won't like just because it saves money?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to point out that not everyone would agree with this statement. So perhaps they're putting in a feature that a lot of their players will like.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying that a lot of the players don't like it, I was saying they could no longer like it. So then the above statement would become true.
I prefer having a co-op zone above no new zone.
I agree that you can overdo the Co-Op thing. However for me this game has not yet reached that point. So I wouldn't mind seeing more co-op stuff in the future.
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying that a lot of the players don't like it, I was saying they could no longer like it. So then the above statement would become true.
[/ QUOTE ]
Say what?! That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
"Idealism is such a wonderful thing. All you really need is someone rational to put it to proper use." - Kerr Avon
Myopic Aardvark on Twitter
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. What's the point of making a feature the players won't like just because it saves money?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to point out that not everyone would agree with this statement. So perhaps they're putting in a feature that a lot of their players will like.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying that a lot of the players don't like it, I was saying they could no longer like it. So then the above statement would become true.
[/ QUOTE ]
The above statement is only true if the players won't like it. Please provide proof that they won't.
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise ; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.*
Co Op Zones. Thumbs up.
1. If you dont like it, its NOT a requisite. You dont loose anything by it being Co-op. At least half the Co Op TFs i do are just a bunch of hero or villain mates anyway.
2. Co-op play vastly diversifies the mix and blend of teams, which is invogarating. Playing a tank when you have brute on the team means you play different. Playing a dominator with a tank on the team is rare bliss. Playing a scrapper remains a dull existence, tempered by the fact you are making it harder for everyone else
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. What's the point of making a feature the players won't like just because it saves money?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to point out that not everyone would agree with this statement. So perhaps they're putting in a feature that a lot of their players will like.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying that a lot of the players don't like it, I was saying they could no longer like it. So then the above statement would become true.
[/ QUOTE ]
The above statement is only true if the players won't like it. Please provide proof that they won't.
[/ QUOTE ]
Note the 'could' in that.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. What's the point of making a feature the players won't like just because it saves money?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to point out that not everyone would agree with this statement. So perhaps they're putting in a feature that a lot of their players will like.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying that a lot of the players don't like it, I was saying they could no longer like it. So then the above statement would become true.
[/ QUOTE ]
The above statement is only true if the players won't like it. Please provide proof that they won't.
[/ QUOTE ]
Note the 'could' in that.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, on the basis of "It is possible that, at some indeterminate amount of time in the future, some, but unlikely all, of the players will cease to enjoy doing co-op" you are asking them to stop developing co-op zones, which, the current market research has almost undoubtedly shown, their players do currently enjoy?
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise ; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.* Hmm, Forum PvP anyone?
Nuff Said...
Coolio Wolfus leader of Coolio�s Crusaders on Union.
Tekna Logik leader of Tekna�s Tormentors on Defiant.
Creator of: Coolio's Tech Beacon Replacements
AE arc 402506, 'The Rise and Demise or Otherwise of Tekna Logik...'.
Spliting the game was a achnowlaged mistake, made under pervious management.
There are insufficient resourses to develop significant amounts of content that will be seen by less than half the playerbase.
Co-op content is the way things have to be, like it or not.
I really should do something about this signature.
But Phantom has a point.
There should be a very good reason why heroes and villains are willing to work together. With the Rikti this was obvious. They try to invade our earth and when we let them we get sucked into the deep smelly brown stuff.
Helping out a fledgling heroine or saving a few of these insufferable longbow officers (Hey didnt i beat you to a pulp yesterday?) is a small price to pay to insure that my plans for world domination does not come to a halting stop.
The reason to help the midnighters however was less then obvious from a vilainous point of view. I did liked the evil arc in which you help a future enemy to more power. That was more like it. I enjoyed the arc and the tf of course but it didn't really fit into my view of what villains should do.
In new expansions I do hope that the villainous mindset is given more thought. After all, why should I risk life and limb to rescue somebody from a powerful threat? The question should be, how can I benefit from the chaos this threat creates?
So new co-op zones is fine with me, so long as it fits the mind sets of both villains and heroes.
One thing always got me thinking about Vanguard and Ouroborus (i havent tried cimoria yet), where's the villain insentive? I can see the hero insentive clear as day; save the world from aliens! Save the timeline! It's not very villainous do do these things, eh?
Also giving access to the timeline to villains seems a little foolish to me (e.g. lets change time to MY benifit).
My 2 cents
[ QUOTE ]
One thing always got me thinking about Vanguard and Ouroborus (i havent tried cimoria yet), where's the villain insentive? I can see the hero insentive clear as day; save the world from aliens! Save the timeline! It's not very villainous do do these things, eh?
[/ QUOTE ]
And if the Rikti successfully wipe every bugger out, what's that villain got left -if- they even survive?
Sam: "My mind is a swirling miasma of scintillating thoughts and turgid ideas."
Max: "Me too."
Stuff
The War Zone arcs are so obviously written for heroes, with just a few words at the beginning to tell you to put your differences aside (DID YOU JUST TELL DOCTOR MENTAL TO PUT HIS DIFFERENCES ASIDE, VANGUARD WELP?! YOU WILL BE TERMINATED etc etc).
So far, it's been BIG THREAT stuff - the Rikti, the collapse of the timelines (after all, if the timeline collapses, you might not exist - it's enough of an incentive for the more rational villains).
Problem is, there's no way to twist it to your advantage, as most villains would do. Wonder if they can right future co-op arcs to reflect villains better?
Personality test when you enter?
Are you:
1. A Hero
2. A middle of the road kind of person who would go either way (please leave game until Going Rogue is implemented)
3. A rational Villain (sure you'll kick puppies, but only if you've got an audience, otherwise you'd spend your time going awwwwww)
4. An insane villain, in which case, Meatball bananas
And have the story arc change to suit accordingly.
"Idealism is such a wonderful thing. All you really need is someone rational to put it to proper use." - Kerr Avon
Myopic Aardvark on Twitter
And if the timeline is disrupted, your villain won't even be born.
I really should do something about this signature.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. What's the point of making a feature the players won't like just because it saves money?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to point out that not everyone would agree with this statement. So perhaps they're putting in a feature that a lot of their players will like.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying that a lot of the players don't like it, I was saying they could no longer like it. So then the above statement would become true.
[/ QUOTE ]
The above statement is only true if the players won't like it. Please provide proof that they won't.
[/ QUOTE ]
Note the 'could' in that.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, on the basis of "It is possible that, at some indeterminate amount of time in the future, some, but unlikely all, of the players will cease to enjoy doing co-op" you are asking them to stop developing co-op zones, which, the current market research has almost undoubtedly shown, their players do currently enjoy?
[/ QUOTE ]
I am not saying that. I am saying just take a break from it for a while. Get a few issues along without it. They will cease to enjoy co-op if every new issue a new co-op zone comes along, but if they take about 2 issues break or something, then the community can get there own plate of fun on their side of the pond. So we don't have to spend every issue wanting to do everything in the co-op zone.
How about a villain-esque co-op zone where the heroes have to help do "bad things" for a change? I can't think why at the mo, but I'm sure someone here can...
@Jay Leon Hart
Kerensky: this has nothing to do with underwear
Zwillinger: I put on my robe and wizard hat...
Synapse: I had to resist starting my last post off with "Yo dawg!"
In either case if there is no world left to rule what will the villains be doing.
I think you're missing a very important point, Aardvark, PRAF, LostNinja and Pointless. If they can be beaten, then how are they a greater threat? While the other side of the pond can beat us, why can't the greater threats? Simple. That's because they're not greater threats. It's a little lie to convince you that they are stronger.
Anyway, if I wanted to keep the timeline going or stop the world being invaded, I would do it on my own. I do not need to meddle with the other side in order to eliminate the problem.
From a villains view helping save the world occasionally is not a bad idea. Especially when its nutters like Rikti doing it. Sure you can hope that the heroes will mannage but do you really trust the survival of the most important thing (namely me) into their hands? Not me. I could try to work with other villains but I know how treacherous I can be. In those cases working with heroes is easier. They are so predictable.
But for lesser threats why should i bother indeed?
About the suggestion of making heroes help villains out:
Yes, it would be fun to see the heroes squirm a little when they need something done I can help with so long as I can reap in some aditional rewards at their expense. 
OK, I'm tired of having every issue a new co-op zone. It might just be me, but it's kinda annoying that the game is no longer becoming individual. We should not be spending lots of time working with the other side, I am not saying co-op is bad, it is just becoming overused.
So please take a few issues' break, NC. Most MMOs don't have co-op at all. If people really want to spend time with the other side, why don't they merge the games?
I am sorry for my little rave, but it's getting annoying now.