Fortune go my wife killed
By
Arcanaville,
Posted on: 2010-06-08 09:26 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
In essence: Yes!|
Originally Posted by Veracity
To sum up:
No prompt: annoying light show and sounds with the possibility of decreasing a challenge that someone wanted. Prompt: people DIE. |
I have played with people who asked to not get buffed by ice shields because it obscured their costume. Are you asking for those to be optional as well? How about speed boost? Enforce Morale (which even deals damage!)?
What makes the fortune different? Every AT can have it? That goes for Stimulant as well. It has annoying visuals/sounds? I think that is entirely subjective and can be said about every buff in the game. Duration? Well, that is one I could actually agree with. But maybe the issue is more that the fortune buff lasts ridiculously long. So instead of messing with the interface the developers could just adjust the duration. Nonetheless this is just a magnitude issue and not a categorical distinction.
So unless you are advocating to make all player interaction through powers optional I see no reason to make this one optional. If you suggest the former than the discussion is on a whole different level.
<grabs popcorn for round two action>mmm the tears 
Quote:
Why? Is it because its ok if the players hate the developers, but not if they hate the other players? Or is it because you think players are more likely to take what the game does more in stride than what other players do? And even if that is true, does that mean your logic is based on a critical threshold of players you're willing to annoy? Or is there a more principled stance that somehow makes what the game does automatically worth the annoyance, but what other players do not?|
Originally Posted by Electric-Knight
Some time between posting that and when getting out of the house today, I realized that I should have said, "As a game designer, how long am I willing to let other players potentially stick someone with something that they're not happy about?"
The answer to how long I'd be willing to let the game/NPCs/Special Results do it, as opposed to other players, is different. |
This is interesting to me because as I said, I believe one of the features of MMOs that actually makes them desirable relative to single player games is the interaction with other players. But I'm wondering if a sanitized version of that interaction is actually worse in the long run, even if it has apparent benefits in the short term. What does it mean to the long term culture of an MMO playerbase when you encourage the belief that all player interaction is voluntary and they have the right for it to be maximally controlled. Where do you draw the line?
Suppose that the technology existed where if I'm street sweeping and someone kills a target I was about to engage, I could simply push a button and that target would reappear for me specifically to allow me to kill it. It would still appear to be dead to the other player. Essentially, everyone would be in overlapping instances. Ignoring the technical limitations, good idea or bad idea for an MMO?
[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.)
Reporting and acting is reactive.
Most players want a way to avoid harassment not deal with it after.
They want proactive design.
Game interactions and player interactions are very different things and must be considered separately.
Some players want to play your game with limited to no player interaction, if you force them you loose those players.
You have to make it so the players who want to play with each other can so meaningfully and those who don't aren't bothered too much by the other people.
Anytime players feel they are forced into situations they don't like they become unhappy and will either stop paying to play or hound you and other players about it.
The question of a player who wants to toggle off damage is relatively meaningless because that is a player who doesn't want to play the game and there for NOT a player at all. God mode is only viable in single person games.
Quote:
In the Janet Kellum arc you encounter a nasty one (murder on my spines/fa. . . literally).|
Originally Posted by Electric-Knight
Personally, I think the Vahzilok's Disease arc is a great experience and shows players, things can happen to you (Although, besides the Hamidon Lightning thing... what else is there?). |
Crey narcotic Auto, Self -Recovery, -Speed, -Recharge
The Crey scientists have injected you with a narcotic that slows your movement speed, attack speed, and endurance recovery! After completing your mission, you should seek help from your contact. If you cannot reach your contact, the effect should wear off.
My Characters
I thought we hashed out this arguement completely already.
Players who want the prompt have a legitimate reason for not wanting a Mystic Fortune. It's pervasive (lasts after death) and potentially debuffs (minor, but still has potential to debuff damage resistance or accuracy). Those are the differences from other buffs in the game. Discussing buffs without permission in general isn't really the point. It's these unavoidable consequences that make it different.
Yes, most people don't want the prompt, but those reasons make it seem prudent to allow it to remain until a better solution can be created (e.g. an option in the menu).
Member of:
Repeat Offenders Network - The Largest Coalition Network in the Game, across Virtue, Freedom, Justice and Exalted. Open to all, check us out.
Current Team Project: Pending
Quote:
Well yes we heard your version of the issue...that's not the only view or only side worth talking about.|
Originally Posted by Necrotron_RO
I thought we hashed out this arguement completely already.
Players who want the prompt have a legitimate reason for not wanting a Mystic Fortune. It's pervasive (lasts after death) and potentially debuffs (minor, but still has potential to debuff damage resistance or accuracy). Those are the differences from other buffs in the game. Discussing buffs without permission in general isn't really the point. It's these unavoidable consequences that make it different. Yes, most people don't want the prompt, but those reasons make it seem prudent to allow it to remain until a better solution can be created (e.g. an option in the menu). |
Thanks for reminding us though, I'm sure someone must have forgot that part.
Quote:
This particular implementation? Probably not a good idea. But the problem that it is a solution to - scarcity of targets induced by the presence of other players - is a legitimate problem, and although it's a philosophically valid answer to say that killstealing is either a) part of the game or b) an offense that can be resolved by a GM, on a practical level it ends up being more convenient to create a system where killstealing has a minimal negative effect. You can do that by creating entire-world instances - this is essentially how Guild Wars handles it, where anyone not on your team simply isn't in your world outside of safe zones. You can do that to some extent by having extremely rapid spawning, as City of Heroes does. You can do it a lot of ways, but if you don't want to work your GMs to death or allow malign players to control your game experience, you have to do something.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Suppose that the technology existed where if I'm street sweeping and someone kills a target I was about to engage, I could simply push a button and that target would reappear for me specifically to allow me to kill it. It would still appear to be dead to the other player. Essentially, everyone would be in overlapping instances. Ignoring the technical limitations, good idea or bad idea for an MMO?
|
The essential problem with MMOs is that most of your players don't actually want to interact with most of the rest of your players, and they definitely don't want to interact with that subset of your players who view any interaction as an opportunity to make someone upset. Of course, in the real world, we don't have the option to opt out of being affected by someone else's existence, but then in the real world there are also much more serious and immediate remedies available when someone is being an onager. For the most part, anyway. But that's sort of a political derail, and by the time you start contemplating politics in your escapist fantasy you may be losing your audience anyway...
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
You're just declaring so. I know some people think this intuitively already. I'm interested to know why they think it. As of yet, I have no justification for honoring this expectation, except for the weaker design rule that player expectations should be honored when there are no other rules that supercede that. In this case, there are lots of rules which would supercede that expectation.|
Originally Posted by LISAR
Game interactions and player interactions are very different things and must be considered separately.
|
If you're trying to convince by assertation, that really isn't going to work on me. I'm not looking to convince anyone of anything at this moment, I'm only providing the opportunity for someone to make a convincing case that might cause me to change my opinion on this issue. However, in the absence of that I will continue to operate on the theory that this is a marginal perspective that needs to be acknowledged, but not necessarily reflected in game design methodology.
For the record, given my current opinion on the matter, if the problem was given to me, I would act accordingly:
1. I would make the buff animation no longer root.
2. I would remove the prompt.
3. There would be no other way to optionally disable the buff.
That would reflect my current game design priorities. If I was explicitly ordered to include a prompt by higher authority (say, War Witch or Positron), then I would:
1. Add the prompt back in.
2. Set the prompt to be disabled by default, with the buff automatically accepted.
3. Set a /command option and/or a menu option to enable the prompt which the player would have to explicitly enable for each character.
4. Recommend that in the patch notes and the option announcement it be explicitly stated that this is an exception to the general rule, and any attempt to declare this a precedent for adding more such options would be interpreted as a vote for removing the prompt and the option.
The thought process that gets me there is the thought process I've outlined. Its mutable, if someone can successfully attack its underpinnings. But I'm unlikely to change my opinion just because someone disagrees with the conclusions themselves.
[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.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
You're just declaring so. I know some people think this intuitively already. I'm interested to know why they think it. As of yet, I have no justification for honoring this expectation, except for the weaker design rule that player expectations should be honored when there are no other rules that supercede that. In this case, there are lots of rules which would supercede that expectation.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LISAR
Some players want to play your game with limited to no player interaction, if you force them you loose those players.
You have to make it so the players who want to play with each other can so meaningfully and those who don't aren't bothered too much by the other people. Anytime players feel they are forced into situations they don't like they become unhappy and will either stop paying to play or hound you and other players about it. The question of a player who wants to toggle off damage is relatively meaningless because that is a player who doesn't want to play the game and there for NOT a player at all. God mode is only viable in single person games. |
The separation is made for the enjoyment of the player...so you can maximize profits.
Quote:
I think the situation is more complex than that. I think its like watching movies in a movie theater. I think that while some people just like the free air conditioning and the big screen, a lot of people go to see movies in the theater because of an ephemeral and difficult to describe experience of seeing it in a room with other people. Of course, no one wants to be sitting next to the people that are talking, putting their feet up on your chair back, or throwing popcorn around, but its also not the same if they are watching the movie in an empty theater where the sound and picture are the same, but there are no people to bother them.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
The essential problem with MMOs is that most of your players don't actually want to interact with most of the rest of your players, and they definitely don't want to interact with that subset of your players who view any interaction as an opportunity to make someone upset.
|
I think MMOs have the same quality. I think most of the players that play them don't want to be *bothered* by the other players, certainly, but they want them to be there. The question for me is at what point do you make the other people so "optionally controlled" that they cease to really be there in a meaningful enough fashion to recreate that experience.
For us old-timers, the "other people" are sitting in our global channels. They are always there, and there's always evidence that they are there, chatting away. But for new players, the "other people" are so invisible due to instancing, that many feel the game is empty and lose their interest in the game for that reason. This is a very tricky thing to balance: by allowing established players to gain more control over their own local experience, they are removing themselves from the global experience that other players might want and need to grow an attachment to the game.
I'm not advocating against instancing itself, but pointing out the tradeoff that exists. The notion that giving players control is always a good thing, and only a good thing, is false. There is always a downside, and you have to be careful not to accumulate too many downsides in the pursuit of diminishing returns on the upside. No one thing is going to have a big effect here, so an option for Mystic Fortune buffs isn't going to radically change the game either way. But the principle which guides that change can, over time, have an overwhelming impact.
[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.)
Briefly, I think the difference between what the game does and what players do is that the developers have an investment in my continued enjoyment of the game, and I as a player can stop paying money for their product if it fails to entertain me. Even though the developers have no direct control over my fellow players, if they intercede with my experience to make it unenjoyable, it is the developers who will suffer the loss.
I am fully aware that it is unfair to blame the developers for the actions of the players. However, regardless of where the blame actually lies, people can't be expected to continue paying for a game that they do not enjoy, even if it is their fellow players who are the proximate cause of the lack of enjoyment. In a just world, people would be responsible for their actions, but in an MMO, the developers are punished for the actions of players. Their only recourse is to make such actions impossible.
Edited to add: That said, I see your point about drawing the line. Some interactions are going to be ambiguous if they are allowed at all, and cutting off every interaction that can be ambiguous is going to leave you with not a whole heck of a lot.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
That's because the developers make the rules under which we interact. If they make rules that allow someone to annoy or harass you it's their fault.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Briefly, I think the difference between what the game does and what players do is that the developers have an investment in my continued enjoyment of the game, and I as a player can stop paying money for their product if it fails to entertain me. Even though the developers have no direct control over my fellow players, if they intercede with my experience to make it unenjoyable, it is the developers who will suffer the loss.
I am fully aware that it is unfair to blame the developers for the actions of the players. However, regardless of where the blame actually lies, people can't be expected to continue paying for a game that they do not enjoy, even if it is their fellow players who are the proximate cause of the lack of enjoyment. In a just world, people would be responsible for their actions, but in an MMO, the developers are punished for the actions of players. Their only recourse is to make such actions impossible. |
That is why proactive design decisions are normally the more favorable outcome.
With player buffs the developers must decide how much control the player has. Each development team has their own view and own way of implementing player control.
Clearly some of the player base is not happy with the current rules so they will either complain, request change, or leave.
Since the developers have made a prompt for MF and options for friendly teleportation they seem to put the line of player control at powers that can cause negative effects (grief TP dropping, chance of bad fortune).
Quote:
This I cannot agree with. I will go so far as to say that because abusive people exist, and because the developers are or should be aware of this, it behooves them to plan accordingly - but when someone takes an opportunity to be abusive, the fault lies with them and not with the opportunity. Failing to account for malicious people is naive, but it is not in itself malicious; malice is malicious.|
Originally Posted by LISAR
That's because the developers make the rules under which we interact. If they make rules that allow someone to annoy or harass you it's their fault.
|
It may seem like a trivial point to argue over, since the end result in terms of suggested developer behavior is the same, but I want to make a clear distinction between accidentally allowing and intentionally perpetrating malicious behavior. People will be jerks, and you have to plan for that, but they're still jerks.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
So are you saying is that the reason for treating player actions differently from game engine actions is that players are more likely to be embarrassed to admit they wanted to turn damage off, but more likely to complain about the actions the game engine allowed other players to inflict? Because you are still stating axiomatically that what the game does to you is something you just have to deal with, but players are different. You're just escalating the axiom to "you do it because if you don't players will leave" or "do it my way because my way will make more money." But I can say the exact same thing.|
Originally Posted by LISAR
If you don't measure them separate and force players to be subject things they don't like they either leave or they rant and rave a negativity impact other players enjoyment.
The separation is made for the enjoyment of the player...so you can maximize profits. |
If the devs don't add an option to disable critter damage, players will either leave or rant negatively, because I said so. So now explain why a dev team should honor your assertion and not mine? Gut instinct? If this all ultimately comes down to gut instinct, then I have no reason not to trust my own over anyone else's, and by extension the devs have no reason to trust any player's gut instinct over their own.
So far, I have:
1. Do it because you're not supposed to make players mad. But this rule sometimes applies and sometimes doesn't, arbitrarily.
2. Do it because the game is different from the players: what players do is just different, because.
3. Do it because complaints about what other players do is more valid than complaints about what the game does. Just because.
4. Do it when its more deleterious than what the game is capable of doing. Except not always.
5. Do it because its more fun. For at least one definition of fun.
6. Do it because there's no downside. Except there can be.
It still seems to be an ad hoc decision driven primarily by preference, not by any specific train of thought based on what's ultimately best for the game as a whole, that can be extended to handle any other situation in the game.
[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.)
Quote:
*SIGH* I covered this earlier...I'm not going to keep repeating myself or repeatedly requote my posts for you. Have fun with this.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
So are you saying is that the reason for treating player actions differently from game engine actions is that players are more likely to be embarrassed to admit they wanted to turn damage off, but more likely to complain about the actions the game engine allowed other players to inflict? Because you are still stating axiomatically that what the game does to you is something you just have to deal with, but players are different. You're just escalating the axiom to "you do it because if you don't players will leave" or "do it my way because my way will make more money." But I can say the exact same thing.
If the devs don't add an option to disable critter damage, players will either leave or rant negatively, because I sai... |
Quote:
I agree that failing to account for malicious people is naive but that shouldn't necessarily mean that you should do something about it. Any 'rule' you put in place to address an issue will always have side effects. And quite often the drawbacks from the side effects exceed the benefit of the rule. Policing after the fact can be the better solution.
|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Failing to account for malicious people is naive, but it is not in itself malicious; malice is malicious.
|
As some one who hasn't played any other MMOs, I have to say I highly resent that other people can choose what happens to my character. Short-duration buffs are fine, they're part of the game and if I don't like them I can avoid them. A 20 minute buff that only ends when I've been using the character for 20 minutes is completely different. It is MY (not saying I own it) character, and I shouldn't have to put up with buffs I don't want.
And no, giving people the option to deny Mystic Fortune isn't a "slippery slope" that is going to end up allowing people to say "No, I don't want to take damage from that attack." Enemy attacks and buffs aren't the same thing at all. The game doesn't WORK if you can click "Don't take damage." Denying a buff isn't even close to that.
Quote:
I've read all your posts. All of them state your preference, and your belief without support that your preference generates a better result. I'm not attempting to convince you of anything, I'm giving you the opportunity to convince me. If you do not wish to avail yourself of that opportunity, that's fine with me. I'm simply collecting information before making up my own mind, and acting accordingly.|
Originally Posted by LISAR
*SIGH* I covered this earlier...I'm not going to keep repeating myself or repeatedly requote my posts for you. Have fun with this.
|
Interestingly, this is the process everyone says the devs should use when contemplating game changes, because it will generate better results. So far, while some people's comments have been thought-provoking in different ways, overall I'm less than impressed.
[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.)
Quote:
Because when it comes down to it, the game itself consists of taking and dealing damage. If you could turn off damage, the next step would be to turn off damage resistance...after all, why should I let the enemy resist my damage to any degree? Why should I let the game do that to me? I want to feel "super" and one-shot everything with Brawl.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Besides, that definition doesn't even cover the trivial example I gave: why can't I optionally shut off damage. The game engine definitely does follow me around and continue to do that. In fact, it does that to a higher degree than all other forms of objectionable activity combined.
|
At that point we don't have a game anymore. We have the AE test mode.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
This is interesting to me because as I said, I believe one of the features of MMOs that actually makes them desirable relative to single player games is the interaction with other players. But I'm wondering if a sanitized version of that interaction is actually worse in the long run, even if it has apparent benefits in the short term. What does it mean to the long term culture of an MMO playerbase when you encourage the belief that all player interaction is voluntary and they have the right for it to be maximally controlled. Where do you draw the line?
|
Quote:
| Suppose that the technology existed where if I'm street sweeping and someone kills a target I was about to engage, I could simply push a button and that target would reappear for me specifically to allow me to kill it. It would still appear to be dead to the other player. Essentially, everyone would be in overlapping instances. Ignoring the technical limitations, good idea or bad idea for an MMO? |
In other games? My experience is only with WoW, but there were several points where player competition for limited spawns did make completing some quests difficult. If the point was to encourage players to team up, it didn't work. Maybe the fault lies with WoW's player base, I don't know, but in games that are less instance-heavy than CoH, I can see how it could be beneficial.
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
Quote:
Sure it does: it simply means you can't die. And actually, there's a lot of people out there that think silly things like "game balance" are actually hurting the game as a whole, and would rather have conceptually unbound sandboxes where every character concept, including invulnerable ones, are allowed to exist.|
Originally Posted by Clebstein
The game doesn't WORK if you can click "Don't take damage."
|
Besides, if you think that the game doesn't function without damage, you can turn it on so the game works for you. A staggeringly large percentage of the forum population for Star Trek Online suggested that any death penalty be optional - and a dev suggested it might be as well without sufficient qualification. This is an equally ludicrous idea with amazingly large support.
But if you think that these things are "obvious" and simple common sense should tell a developer when to reject them and when to accept them, don't blame them when their common sense radically contradicts yours. It will eventually.
[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.)
Quote:
Maybe a game works if you don't take damage. But THIS game does not.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Sure it does: it simply means you can't die. And actually, there's a lot of people out there that think silly things like "game balance" are actually hurting the game as a whole, and would rather have conceptually unbound sandboxes where every character concept, including invulnerable ones, are allowed to exist.
|
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
Quote:
I don't think you did. Quickly checking your previous posts:|
Originally Posted by LISAR
*SIGH* I covered this earlier...I'm not going to keep repeating myself or repeatedly requote my posts for you. Have fun with this.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LISAR
The question of a player who wants to toggle off damage is relatively meaningless because that is a player who doesn't want to play the game and there for NOT a player at all. God mode is only viable in single person games.
|
Arcana's hypothetical position:
City of Heroes is a game about free and unlimited hero interaction with optional combat components (PvE and PvP).
An attempt at presenting your position (slightly exagerated):
City of Heroes is a game about heroes in combat with player interaction being optional (friendly and unfriendly).
The game obviously lies somewhere in the middle. The 'optional buff' side wants the game to lean more 'your' way. I am OK with players wanting this but the second position isn't inherently 'better' or more accurate. As such most of the 'arguments' constructed to support the 'optional buff' are built on sand.
Quote:
Both sides of the argument are stating opinions based of our in game experiences because none of us are game developers.|
Originally Posted by Dunkelzahn_NA
I don't think you did. Quickly checking your previous posts:
You are dismissing the argument based on an assertion as to what you expect the game to be. Arcana's hypothetical position: City of Heroes is a game about free and unlimited hero interaction with optional combat components (PvE and PvP). An attempt at presenting your position (slightly exagerated): City of Heroes is a game about heroes in combat with player interaction being optional (friendly and unfriendly). The game obviously lies somewhere in the middle. The 'optional buff' side wants the game to lean more 'your' way. I am OK with players wanting this but the second position isn't inherently 'better' or more accurate. As such most of the 'arguments' constructed to support the 'optional buff' are built on sand. |
I have yet to play an MMO where there has not been a division between game interaction and player interaction and I can not see one working. Players will annoy each other. Some people are annoyed because they are overly sensitive and some people make sport of bothering others.
The people who want an adjustment with player buffs are annoyed with them. Other players are preventing them from enjoying the game.
People who want Scrapper damage Tank sets and other methods of steam rolling everything aren't interesting in playing the game they are interested in dominating it. MMOs try to avoid player domination because then they have nothing to do in game (unless they have a healthy PvP base) and stop paying for extended periods of time.
If you think an MMO can survive by treating NPCs and players as equal please provide some examples.
To sum up:
No prompt: annoying light show and sounds with the possibility of decreasing a challenge that someone wanted.
Prompt: people DIE.