Why is it harder to revamp a zone than to make a new one?

Boy I hope a DEV reads and answers this ...

Both Positron and War Witch state they would prefer to concentrate resources on making new zones rather than revamping old ones because it's easier to do so.

I'd like to know why it's actually easier to make a new zone than it is to revamp an old one? What does a revamp involve that making a new zone doesn't?

I don't think it's 'harder' to revamp an old zone than it is to create a new one but...

They get more 'bang for their bucks' when they create a new zone since people can go 'oooh shiney!' instead of 'it's about bloody time!' when they revamp an old zone.

I agree with the people saying that we've already GOT enough zones, how about revamping the crap and near useless ones FIRST before focusing on 'ooh shiney!'. I had hoped with War Witch incharge the stance would change unfortunately it seems the relentless forward march of the shiney continues.

Agree - the devs never said it is harder to redevelop old zones, just that it takes just as much time to do that as create a new zone.

To slightly disagree with Dr Mechano, CoH has enough zones and definitely has some that need a revamp (all untouched hazard zones, for instance) while CoV really needs some new zones to help fill it out more (and perhaps provide another story outside of the 'Destined One' meta-story).

Didn't they change the architecture in the Hollows & Faultline? I remember the Hollows being more difficult to travel through (especially without travel powers) with pits and cliffs and chasms and Faultline was re-designed to show the effects of construction and rebuilding.

In that case, I can see where it would take just as long to revamp a zone as to design a new one. Even the time you save by not redesigning the whole zone is then offset by making sure the new pieces fit together, making sure the new mission doors go where they should (I'm looking at you, "Mission door in the AE sidewalk" bug), new contact placement, etc.

If you were to "revamp" Steel Canyon by just changing the missions and onctacts I don't think it'd take so long. But I doubt many people would be impressed by it either.

I think they sort of blew up the old faultline and put a new one on top of it.

Anyone remember? It was eather that or Rikti war zone that when revamped, people who at one point logged off there were later logging into the old forms of the zones.

Hero side: REVAMP THE JUNK!

Villains: Add more stuff

Seriously. It's not that hard to get a head around. Blueside needs quality. Redside needs more quantity.

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.

Faultline got a good revamp.

This Video gives a good look at what Fault was back in the day...

As to a possible reason for new and shiney over revamp, think about this:

I believe either Posi or War Witch stated, maybe in something Herocon related, that the overall resources needed to do a zone revamp (like Faultline) is about the same as doing a new zone. I personally, as much as I would like to see some zones, blue side, overhauled, would rather see their efforts put into newer material than updating existing stuff.

Let's also keep in mind that the Hollows updates were mainly stuff War Witch was doing on the side (Like BABs and the Walk Power).

Now if I had my choice of which zone needed a Fault-like revamp...
Boomtown, I choose You!

Thank you for the time...

@Travlr (Main) / @Tymers Realm (Test)

What I simply cannot understand is HOW the hell they think revamping is, somehow, magically inferior to new zones? New zones !!!= better. There is so much dross in the old blueside zones that is sitting there, weighing it all down. There is a reason I either try and get on RWZ teams or teams that speed up levelling blueside, when im not playing redside. Because Blueside content is dire. It truly is.

Blueside has quantity. But it sure as heck does not have quality. Redside, however, has a lot of quality.

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.

The difference I think is that there is a disconnect between what the playerbase things is a revamp and what the dev team's standards for a revamp is. Then again I think the playerbase expectation differs by zone.

Take Dark Astoria:
Add 4 contacts, with story arcs maybe a 5th for a TF, maybe not.

Playerbase cheers that DA has been 'revamped'. For no more work than adding 4 new contacts anywhere else.


Boomtown:
this would require rejigging the main zone map for construction sites, Adding contacts, changing spawns. This would be at least as much work as Faultline was.

I don't think the 4 contacts and call it good would be well received by the players here.

I think that if it's extreme enough a revamp, it can practically be a new zone. I, for example, wouldn't be suprised if they update Boomtown to be the new Fifth Column HQ.

There's a mission in the 15-19 range your villain goes to the (now under reconstruction) Baumton. There're cranes and buildings going up, and all sorts. What with issue fifteen poking its head up more recently, I'm expecting the reconstruction to be under new management soon enough. I'm hoping for a Striga Isle-esque zone: a hazard zone, but with enough to do there it isn't ignored.

Don't forget Atlas, Galaxy and Kings Row have had minor revamps.

Spawns were changed, longbow and police patrols added that actually fight mobs.

Made the intial zone experience feel much more 'alive' than previously.

Even expanding this basic tech throughout the other city zones would be significant progress in changing the 'feel' of the outdoors experience.

I think the other reason we are getting new zones rather than re-vamped old ones is because this way the devs only need to create one new zone an issue, rather than revamping one and creating a new one for villains. This also explains the tendency towards co-op.

So I found a post I made last June about this (in a thread about If you could design the next expansion?...). It contains the excerpt from my chatlogs from the EU pocket D event.

Hopefully this helps show exactly what was said re: zone revamps, though if not I'll look into reposting a larger chunk complete with timestamps.

Of course, it all relies on my being honest enough not to edit or misreport...
<.<
>.>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judgement_Dave [ QUOTE ] Seriously, I think Positron lost a screw somewhere when he said they were not going to revamp the older zones. [/ QUOTE ] When did he say that? He didn't say that in the anniversary EU pocket D event, as I'm guessing you think he did. Couple of notes: 1. The EU pocket D exchange about zone revamps/new zones actually went: Golden Girl1: Positron, are there any plans to give older zones a Faultline-style makeover, like Boomtown, for example, or would you rather add new zones to the game first? Positron: Right now, we'd rather add zones Positron: since a revamp takes almost as much time Notice that, to paraphrase, he said 'at this point in time we'd prefer to create new zones'. That is not the same as saying that now or in the future they will not do any zone revamps. It doesn't even say that they don't have any future ones planned. They may even have some being done now, as there is an overwhelming reason to revamp a zone, even though they'd 'prefer' not to. 2. What counts as a zone revamp??? At the EU pocket D event, Posi stated that they'd done 2 zone revamps: Positron: So we've done two "revamps" to zones so far. Positron: So we have a good metric on how much time it takes Positron: And for a smidge more time, we can make a brand new zone. But in recent years we've seen revamps to RCS, Faultline and Hollows haven't we? Now it's possible that he misremembered or miscounted, but I doubt it. It appears RCS/RWZ and Faultline were both revamps in the devs eyes - they both had a good range of zone story arcs and contacts added, and saw changes to the zones architecture/geometry. The changes made to the Hollows were far less intensive and seem to not count as a revamp in the devs eyes. But we did see a reasonable shake up in the zone spawns, a new contact for repeatable missions and some new facilities (involving minor architecture/geometry changes). If that's how the devs do see it then of course what they refer to as a zone revamp will be nearly as much work as creating a new zone. Practically half of FL was redesigned - with the rebuild and dam area being added. RWZ has quite a few new areas, not least of all the vanguard base itself. And both had at least 3 zone story arcs added. It makes me wonder exactly where a zone revamp starts. Maybe adding a single zone arc contact and a repeatable contact to DA, but leaving the architecture untouched wouldn't count as a revamp. If that's the case then it's possible that DA and Boom could see some more use without being given the full dev-qualifying 'revamp' treatment. So even if the devs aren't planning what they class as a zone revamp it is still possible that they are planning what the playerbase would see as a zone revamp.

So I found the post I originally did with timestamped (with times using British Summer Time, GMT+1) excerpts from the chatlog of the EU pocket D 5th anniversary event.

The full post is here.

The main section regarding zones/mission is midway through the post:

I think adding AND revamping have their ups and downs. There's evidence of both options being a waste of time, as well as being a success. I do however think that BOTH should be done, to an extent. New zones can bring in new ideas and concepts. But also if we only add zones we'll end up with 100 zones, only 5 of which are ever used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

PAX has seen a reconfirmation of the devs preference for new zones over revamps:

Q: Any plans to revisit old hazard zones?
Bianco Yes, they do revisit sometimes, but only when it makes sense; they like creating new one a lot more.

I wish they'd hire ONE new dev and say, "Hey, you are here to create a steady stream of new content. While you can implement your own ideas, we strongly suggest you exploit the existing lore. Players have been clamoring for new content that reflects the unexplored lore behind Perez Park, Boomtown, and Dark Astoria. Now ... get to it!"

It bugs me that it seems like changing zone geometry is a "requirement" in the dev's eyes when what most probably want is just one or two story arcs and maybe a TF to the zones.