Utilizing good MA authors to revamp old content
By
FredrikSvanberg,
Posted on: 2009-11-03 19:55 in Suggestions and Ideas
Quote:
This is the biggie there. Which arcs does "everyone universally agree" on? I mean, the Posi TF, sure. But after that? There may be bits I want to see chopped OUT of an arc here or there (I forget which it is, in Skyway, where someone gives you a CD for a contact - and you find out it was some music for that contact's kid, nothing related to the mission at all,) but universally? Some want all hunt missions gone, where others see where they just fit in with what's going on in the story. I think the VEAT arcs are a waste of time and a disappointment, EvilGeko loves them. |
Originally Posted by Sister_Twelve
Personally, I think this is the way to go. Inside of a year, assuming the community stays enthusiastic, you could have every arc that everyone universally agrees has major problems or in some way is outdated replaced with something better.
|
What's the cutoff point? And what do you do for those who liked the previous arcs?
(I have to add, with that last line - while I wish I'd gotten to run the Calvin Scott TF, I love that it went away. I wish more content would BE here for only an issue or two, then either evolve or vanish, to keep the feel of the game evolving.)
I like this idea. I'm sure there are quite a few difficulties with making it come true, however. The least of which might be that MA missions just aren't easily converted into "real" missions.
As for the idea of evolving content I think they would do well if they used Ouroboros as a depository for old outdated content when they add new content to replace it. That way Ouroboros would be closer to actual time travel since we'd "go back" to revisit content that no longer exists in the "present".
Example: The current arcs relating to the Praetorians could theoretically be replaced by new arcs more relevant to the Praetoria presented in Going Rogue. The old arcs would still be available in Ouroroboros while the new arcs would be available from the "real" contacts in Peregrine Island.
Ideally Ouroboros should not have to depend on contacts existing in the "present time" to dispense the missions. They could perhaps use a technology similar to the MA contact hologram and simply have the contacts appear within the crystal of fire and ice, instead of having us travel to the contact in the game world.
Winner of Players' Choice Best Villainous Arc 2010: Fear and Loathing on Striga; ID #350522
I remember suggesting way back when, I think, about an Archive building.
(I think I suggested it...maybe it never made it to the boards...)
Either way, old missions and suchnot would go here, as would some new content.
Want to know what the battles of Dawn Patrol vs the Storm Korps were like? Find out in the History section!
Other historic evens could be re-lived bia the Archives, as well as old content that was cut but that some people would like to re-run for the old time feel.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
 |
I am fully in favor of Sister Twelve's idea. In fact I suggest we don't wait for the developers to make this happen but to start our own initiative. Why don't we start with creating some arcs for one of deadzones like Boomtown, Perez park, Astoria, Crey Folly and Eden?
Lets say we start with Dark Astoria. I have lately played a few excellent arcs that could seamlessly be put in there. Then once we got a few good arcs we start forwarding them to the devs with our request that they make a couple of those arcs into cannon.
Quote:
'Universally agree on' was probably a poor choice of words on my part. Obviously there will be arcs currently in existence that, for whatever reason, have some degree of sentimental value to people in the community. Simultaneously, there is bound to be disagreement on which arcs to prioritize in this sort of project and which could conceivably left for, say, 'round 2' if 'round 1' works out to the developers liking.| This is the biggie there. Which arcs does "everyone universally agree" on? |
But that's the thing... as a playing community, I think the idea of this gaining ground is as important as how it is ultimately implemented. It's the developers' game, so execution is always in their hands. Ultimately, assuming they like the idea, which arcs get tinkered with and which ones don't will be in their hands.
Now, I think there are some arcs that are slam dunks... the ones that, for whatever reason, are often not finishable because mobs will disappear into walls being the prime example. The defeat-alls perhaps not as much, but I think there's a consensus among the majority of players that those types of missions, once valuable for leveling purposes, just like hazard zones, have sort of run their course with the way this game has evolved over time.
But like I said, this is not a list of my own personal bug-a-boos... it's an idea that's emerged from literally a couple of years of reading threads about how that starting zones on the hero-side 'suck,' and seeing that many of the complaints are very common types of complaints.
We as players can't do anything about the massive amount of running around the early missions require because way back when, the early developers wanted to train us to explore the city. We can't do anything about the missions that require us to drop everything to travel across a vast zone to go meet someone to introduce a pvp zone or Faultline or things like that.
But we can, (hopefully), as a community do something to address common complaints about mission design.
I honestly think this is a win-win for the devs, because they'd simultaneously be getting a better game AND listen to the common complaints of their playerbase. And if the product that emerges from a given team is substandard? They can say, "Thanks, but I think we need to go another way."
They aren't obligated to do anything. And as long as the teams understand that going in, then I think this would be something great for everyone involved AND all of the new potential players of the game.
About the only issue is that we still have key limitations in AE. As much as people complain about hunts and travel, done right they can fit into the plot of the story and the feel of the mission. Hunts especially cause an issue since the feel of some hazard zones may be more difficult to duplicate.
Rather than waiting for official approval, it might be best for a few architects to go ahead and experiment with a few missions from various current missions/TFs/SFs.
I'm against anything that elevates particular players above the rest, and gives them greater control over the game. (Outside of them being outright hired, of course.)
If they're planning on revamping old content, then I'd rather they handle it themselves, and extensively listen to everyone's feedback, like they did with the 5th Column TFs.
Never surrender! Never give up!
Help keep Paragon City alive with the unofficial City of Heroes Tabletop Role Playing Game!
Quote:
You make a valid point on this end of things. However, I think that the MA could be a decent springboard for these discussions. As I mentioned, some things simply can't be done in the MA so the devs would have to make alterations anyway. For example, in Posi TF there's a part where you need to speak with Azuria. Fun as MA is, we're trapped in that room with that glowing light so no fedex's for us, even when they make sense.
|
Originally Posted by IanTheM1
I'm against anything that elevates particular players above the rest, and gives them greater control over the game. (Outside of them being outright hired, of course.)
If they're planning on revamping old content, then I'd rather they handle it themselves, and extensively listen to everyone's feedback, like they did with the 5th Column TFs. |
From what I've seen, there's a general consensus that content written before "x" date is usually lacking in some way or another. "X" date can be almost any date subjective to the mind of whoever is making the claim at the time, so I am not going to assign one in hopes of avoiding a relatively pointless debate over what "x" date actually is.
The usual list of complaints I see:
- Monotony
- Repetitiveness
- Arcs that are pointlessly 20 missions long
- Glitchy (for whatever reason)
- Endless numbers of defeat alls
- Poorly written (although this is an aesthetic judgment and should probably not be the overriding reason for selection)
What I propose is this:
The developers have had ample time to see what the player population can produce in MA now. They are obviously paying some amount of attention to it, because they just had the awards for arcs of the year and so forth. So they certainly have a 'pool' of authors to choose from.
Additionally, the focus of the developers should be to look forward and not to look back. That's understandable. Their attention should be devoted to Going Rogue and future Issues. I totally get that. But simultaneously, in a game where one of the stated favored playstyles is alt-itis and with a pool of talented mission developers, presumably who would be willing, there can simultaneously be both a focus on the future AND a push to make the content created early better than it currently is.
How? Very simple.
The developers could pick from the pool of authors and give them team assignments. Then they could tell them, "Okay, 'Arc X' is your baby. You have 1 month to give us a superior version of this arc. If we agree, then we'll go with it. If we don't agree that the new version is better, then we won't go with it."
Personally, I think this is the way to go. Inside of a year, assuming the community stays enthusiastic, you could have every arc that everyone universally agrees has major problems or in some way is outdated replaced with something better.