Does anyone use AE anymore?

I strongly disagree. Some of the most fun I've had on this game has been due to the AE. I am mostly a soloist and I'm story focused. Fast leveling means nothing to me. Heck, I played one of my characters in perma debt during i4 to try to catch every possible story arc on the way up. I'm here for good stories, and AE gives me plenty of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leandro I strongly disagree. Some of the most fun I've had on this game has been due to the AE. I am mostly a soloist and I'm story focused. Fast leveling means nothing to me. Heck, I played one of my characters in perma debt during i4 to try to catch every possible story arc on the way up. I'm here for good stories, and AE gives me plenty of that.

Be honest with yourself. What percentage of the player base plays the game like you?

There are always exceptions and minorities. It's the big picture we should be concerned about.

I have well over 30 50's, I love a good story, but honestly, I play for the social aspect of the game, and many of my friends want to lvl, so AE is a scarce part of my play unless I'm PLing, in that case I use it alot.

Funny part is, the probability that the % of farmers using AE went up as a result of the change; not becuase so many farmers started using AE, but becuase the ones that still do are now a bigger % of the overall then previous.

Its quite silly really, devs need more then data.

There's a difference in "viable" and "desirable". To use an obviously extreme example, it'd be hypothetically possible to level up on the rewards for exploration badges if there were enough of them. It'd clearly not be a way to level most people would choose to use.

Acknowledging that it's a fundamental human nature and "catering to" it aren't always the same thing. I don't think the devs should have created something that herd mentality would keep the significant majority of players out of. I expand on this more below.

There's an aspect of what you're calling the "herd mentality" that I've observed several times both here and in completely different contexts. If any given activity gives a really, really good reward, people will flock to that activity even if they claim they don't want to. Basically, people consider the opportunity cost of not doing whatever it is so high that lots and lots of them will all perform it, even if they don't actually find the activity itself that entertaining.

If you don't actually want everyone doing just whatever the thing is, the trick is to reduce what's so rewarding about it until you find the breakpoint not where everyone stops doing it, but where almost everyone stops doing it exclusively. The best middle ground is where a significant number of people still perform the activity, but not all the time. You want those doing it to do so because they think it's fun and/or just right on rewards compared to alternatives. You don't have to stop everyone from using the tool for rewards, or even stop everyone from considering it the most rewarding activity. You just have to make it so that many more people consider the opportunity cost of not doing it to be reasonable.

Your example is a ridiculous extreme (and I'm sure you're well aware it was). Not everyone runs paper missions, because they aren't so much better than everything else that enough people want to. Not everyone farms, because traditional farming is not instantly accessible to everyone (you have to go get certain missions rather than just walk into a mission editor in the 1st zone you enter in the game). The AE was so good that anyone who considered leveling speed an important play factor at all was basically nuts not to use it. What the devs needed to do was to fix that - they needed to make the opportunity cost of not farming or PLing in the AE lower.

The devs overshot (undershot?) that point significantly. There's an old joke around here from the days of Statesman and Geko that the devs would come up with 3 different solutions to a balance problem and then implement all of them. I think they basically did that here, but the number of solutions was a bit larger than three. I'm somewhat hopeful that they will still address this later, but it's likely to be a while. They already devoted a ton of resources to the AE, and I'm not sure how much they can continue to devote with other ambitious efforts underway.

Then it doesn't matter what the **** the most efficient way to level is, you're going to do it and you're going to do it because it's fun. People like you are the exact opposite of the kind of people that should be worried about, because you gravitate towards quantifying a point of efficiency. No matter what's introduced, you'll do what's best for the thing you choose to do, so really, you're a superfluous concern at best.

So yeah, I guess, Everyone Else's Potential Fun > Your Inevitable Fun.

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

So, his fun < your fun?

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

Unless we're talking about power leveling, or some other leveling method that clearly needs to exceed the base leveling speed of AE missions approved under the changes.

But we're clearly not talking about those things in this thread. Nope. Nope. Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talen_Lee Then it doesn't matter what the **** the most efficient way to level is, you're going to do it and you're going to do it because it's fun. People like you are the exact opposite of the kind of people that should be worried about, because you gravitate towards quantifying a point of efficiency. No matter what's introduced, you'll do what's best for the thing you choose to do, so really, you're a superfluous concern at best. So yeah, I guess, Everyone Else's Potential Fun > Your Inevitable Fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talen_Lee So, his fun < your fun?

Quote:

Originally Posted by brophog02 Unless we're talking about power leveling, or some other leveling method that clearly needs to exceed the base leveling speed of AE missions approved under the changes. But we're clearly not talking about those things in this thread. Nope. Nope. Nope.

Did I say leveling was my definition of fun? Stop pointing fingers.

Either I'm missing the point of argument, or you are.

From what I understand, the argument is on whether or not anyone uses AE anymore. Again, from what I've been reading, one side of the argument says "Yes. There is nothing wrong with AE; and it's still fun." and the other side says "No. There is something wrong with AE because such and such; and it's not fun anymore."

Furthermore, it appears that people in the "No" category have a common reason for which they believe AE is deserted:

It providers lower reward compared to the risk relative to regular content. And they (and me) believe that the reduction of rewards in AE relative to the risk involved, reduces the general amount of fun, if fun were to be a quantified concept.

We're not talking about my fun, or your fun. We're not talking about powerleveling. We're not talking about cheating. These are the exact issues that happened in threads regarding AE during the period I'd like to call "AE crisis".

And let's get something out of the way: I haven't actually played and leveled in this game for over a month now, and I really did not, still don't, and will never care much about AE. So no, I'm not an efficiency expert. However, when I look at the MAJORITY of players, I can understand why AE has lost its charm for them, and all I did was try to justify it.

When you design a video game, or a video game feature, it is a known fact that you cannot please everyone. But you need to know your audience, and satisfy the majority of those people for maximum profit, both money-wise and customer-satisfaction-wise.

Look at AE, as it stands. Can you say that the majority of players are satisfied with it?

If you answer yes, then I have nothing to argue with you. And by 'you', I'm not pointing fingers to anyone in particular. Clearly your opinions, sources, and facts, differ from mine, and there is no room for further discussion. We'll have to agree to disagree.

If you answer no, then you're seeing the issue from my point of you. All I have been, still am, and will continue to say (until there is a change in AE system for the better), is that AE, for all intents and purposes, was a failed promise.

I'm not saying there is anything WRONG with that. Not every game is perfect. I enjoy many other parts of the game that don't have anything to do with AE, as do many other players. And from my observations, I think that's the majority of players.

And no, that does not mean Majority of Players' Fun > Your Fun. What I am saying is this:

Majority of Players Having Fun with a Feature X => Feature X = Success
Majority of Players NOT Having Fun with a Feature X => Feature X = Failure

I really can't break it down further for you guys. And this is my opinion. Feel free to disagree, as I'm certain you will, as you tend read between my lines and extract stuff I never said.

Can't disagree with this.

Someone is writing the new arcs I play. A lot of someones, in fact. So the AE is not the complete ghost town that some people are painting. I have no problem with it being a minority; so is PvP. Yes, the AE could use some attention, but calling it "the second worst failure in the game" is a massive exaggeration at best.

I don't think a lot of people who actually PvP would have a problem characterizing PvP as the top-ranked failed feature in the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leandro Someone is writing the new arcs I play. A lot of someones, in fact. So the AE is not the complete ghost town that some people are painting. I have no problem with it being a minority; so is PvP. Yes, the AE could use some attention, but calling it "the second worst failure in the game" is a massive exaggeration at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGuy I don't think a lot of people who actually PvP would have a problem characterizing PvP as the top-ranked failed feature in the game.

I think I actually read someone in this thread who made AE arcs complain about AE. Something along the lines of "Why should I, who make legit arcs, have the rewards of my arcs be reduced to the point that no one would play them"?

This is not a direct quote. I'm just paraphrasing a post I saw.

Actually, as far as failures go within the game (Failure being defined as not attracting large amounts of players, so no money, and this game is, after all is said and done, a buisness), it is the second worst failure, bested only by CoP failure. PvP I will, and many others, will prolly agree is the third worst failure in the game.

PvP Prolly still has double AEs numbers, and PvP numbers are pretty small compared to the minority that is the badging community, or base building community.

The only outliar in the data that is AE is whether, when speaking towards AE's population includes or discludes the farmers that STILL use it, in that case pvp might not have double, but definitly more then AE.


Is AE a ghost town?, Litterally? No. Comparitively to the next smallest minority, yes.

My experience on triumph, small server really, is we have an astounding 2-3 AE author regulars, possibly 7 players a week play arcs in week, the authors are included in this number. We have 6-9 pvp'rs that PvP quite often daily, and have on occassion, usually once maybe twice a week, we can peak at a nice 6v6 or so.

As far as failures in a buisness related sense, AE can quite easily be considered a failure, this isn't an opinion, but a very arguable fact.

I can, because it reduces success/failure to a popularity contest.

Putting PvP aside, the majority of players aren't building supergroup bases; that doesn't make bases a failure the ones building bases certainly enjoy the activity. The majority of players don't flashback to missions a lot; that doesn't make Ourorobos a failure, people wanted Flashback for years. The majority of players don't play in the Shadow Shard (a ton of players don't even know it exists); that doesn't make the Shadow Shard a failure, it has great scenery, a few nice Task Forces (Dr. Q aside) and the Storm Palace is a great place to hunt. The majority of players don't try to collect every single badge out there; that doesn't make badge hunting a failure, we have TWO websites set up for showing off badge collections. Heck, there are more heroes than villains, does that mean COV is a failure?

Just because a feature doesn't appeal to everybody that doesn't make it a failure. I am GLAD that AE was nerfed to the point where people are honestly trying to make missions with it; it could use a bit of tweaking upwards, but I don't WANT it to go back to the levels of 'popularity' it had, where the only thing happening in the AE buildings was farming. It ruined an otherwise great tool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leandro I can, because it reduces success/failure to a popularity contest. Putting PvP aside, the majority of players aren't building supergroup bases; that doesn't make bases a failure the ones building bases certainly enjoy the activity. The majority of players don't flashback to missions a lot; that doesn't make Ourorobos a failure, people wanted Flashback for years. The majority of players don't play in the Shadow Shard (a ton of players don't even know it exists); that doesn't make the Shadow Shard a failure, it has great scenery, a few nice Task Forces (Dr. Q aside) and the Storm Palace is a great place to hunt. Heck, there are more heroes than villains, does that mean COV is a failure? Just because a feature doesn't appeal to everybody that doesn't make it a failure. I am GLAD that AE was nerfed to the point where people are honestly trying to make missions with it; it could use a bit of tweaking upwards, but I don't WANT it to go back to the levels of 'popularity' it had, where the only thing happening in the AE buildings was farming. It ruined an otherwise great tool.

You have to specify failure from a perspective.

From a cost/benefit analysis and point of view, AE was a failure. Ourboros did take 100% of an issue, and even delay it. SG bases came along with City of Villains, and they did not cost as much as AE did.

AE took up an entire Issue. AE delayed an Issue. AE gave birth to Issue 15, which was a very controversial Issue. Then we got the "AE Crisis" once it was released. And then it was obliterated by almost completely making its rewards worthless to many players (when compared to risks involved), and now it's one of the unpopular features of the game, to say the least.

Did Ouroboros cause that much mess? Did SG bases cause that much mess? No.

So no. The success of a feature is not a popularity contest, unless you consider it from a business stand point, and consider the costs.

I apologize if I did not make my perspective clear in my earlier post.

Cathedral of Pain got less media attention than Architect. Many players don't even know what CoP is. Architect still works, and there is parity between missions in AE and in game missions, providing you avoid using custom mobs. Yet if you use the words "PvP" and "failure" in the same sentence on this forum, very bad things happen. Oops.

I find that hard to believe.

I find that even harder to believe.

Which minority are you speaking of?

I would argue that the average PvE'er is more likely to accept a team invite to AE over a team invite to PvP. Over the course of time, it is more likely to see a larger fanbase using AE than active in PvP.

At best, this is an unsubstantiated assertion.

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talen_Lee Brightshadow stop stating with authority unprovable assertations to justify your position. Just because you know the words 'arguable' and 'fact' doesn't mean you can slap them on things like a label.

...what?!

You're misstating the argument. It's not simply a popularity contest, where the most popular features succeed, and the less popular ones fail. However, there's a threshold of popularity below which a feature on which significant effort was spent should be considered a failure. That's two dimensions - level of adoption by the players and level of effort to create. If the AE had been like a week's worth of after hours coding and design by a couple of the devs then its having poor adoption rates by the wide player base wouldn't be a big deal. However, it took what certainly appeared to be a great deal of effort, had rather huge media presence in CoH terms, and now is pretty clearly not widely used at all by our player base.

And I don't think anyone here is arguning for that definition of failure. People need to stop trying to take the argument places it's not going. The problem is not tht the feature doesn't appeal to everybody. It's that it doesn't seem to appeal to much of anybody in terms of our total active playerbase. It's not just about who's out there writng arcs - I'd expect there to be fewer people writing arcs than playing them even if I considered the AE a wild success. The problem is that there aren't more people playing those arcs.

I don't think it should go back there either, and I've not suggested it should in this thread. The feedback effects I've talked about earlier is going to make finding the balance point tricky, but I think the devs can do it if they're able to prioritize spending the time.

CoP was only a major component of PvP, even had its own forum section. It was on the original box for CoV, and whether the reason MA got more advertising is due to its importance, forecasted success or becuase it simply was an addition to a game that was much better then it was as it first started.

The dispairity between the two is larger then you make it sound, missing from it are things such as arc bonus', end of mish bonus' and patrol XP. THey do quite count for a nice chunk of xp in most RC mishs.




I actually tried to disprove it, I went into RV on freedom, at around 3 in the afternoon and advertised making an AE arc team, managed to get a 5 man team together for eh, bout half an arc. While in RV there was a quite healthy 17 ish heros, and 9 vills.

Triumph was much the same, managed a nice 4v3 in RV and a nice quiet 3 man team, we did a few arcs however before it died.



Ok, you don;t have to beleive it for it to be true man



I too enjoy the fruits of denial, however, not in this particular matter.



Would they prefer AE over PvP, yes, for only the fact that its PvE in a PvE centric game, I am speaking in reference to existing levels of players. Although, comparing who will go to what base over whatelse is different, considering that AE would be more appealing for lack of a severe learning curve, seeing as how PvP hardly resembles PvE.



Not really,

Chew on this for a little thought.

Cimerora took up a nice issue, isn't done, and is certainly currently getting used more then AE( Proved by the numerous ITFs always going on ).

Where as AE took up the better side of what, I'm tempted to say 3-4 issues, and is currently nearing a point where the devs are likely thinking it complete, and as of now, has less users then cim, for more time invested. Is this a failure? Yes, can you fix failure? In this case yes.




However, until it is fixed, it is quite low on the list of things that can be considered a buissness failure. However, not completely, it has potential, however, like I have said in this thread, it won't go anywhere until the devs come to terms with the fact that people will farm in it.

Cimerora isn't being used......the ITF is being merit farmed (how many teams EVER run actual missions in Cimerora?). It's not being "used" anymore than Katies and Edens were.

And those are so good, no one runs them anymore.

We're working in circles here folks. Every time someone makes a suggestion that this isn't a thread about power gaming it comes back to being a thread about power gaming.

And the first rule of power gaming is: Only the best matters. Every time anything is tweaked that changes and something else *needs help*. It's a chase your tail mentality, and this thread is proof of it.

This is called a straw man - set up an argument your opponent isn't making that's easier to shoot down than your opponent's actual argument.

How many TFs that people run more than once aren't being merit farmed? Why do you think people ever do TFs more than once? Why do you think non-badge rewards were added to them in the first place?

Quote:

Originally Posted by brophog02 We're working in circles here folks. Every time someone makes a suggestion that this isn't a thread about power gaming it comes back to being a thread about power gaming. And the first rule of power gaming is: Only the best matters. Every time anything is tweaked that changes and something else *needs help*. It's a chase your tail mentality, and this thread is proof of it.

No one here is mentioning anything about power gaming or power leveling! It's only you who's doing that! xD

The LGTF. It's really fun and I form it all the time. The mini Hami raid in it is much more fun than the real Hami raid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leandro The LGTF. It's really fun and I form it all the time. The mini Hami raid in it is much more fun than the real Hami raid.

You really need to start considering the fact that you are not the only person who plays this game.