Quote:
Not really: the purple patch would see to that.|
Originally Posted by Cantatus
Well, that, and if numbers didn't increase as you progressed you could essentially have level 1 characters soloing in Peregrine Island.
|
What I'm talking about is that in a very real sense, health and damage go up mainly for vanity sake, not for any numerical game design reason. Suppose I have an attack that does 10 points of damage, and it does 10 points of damage from level 1 to level 50. And suppose a minion has 40 health at level 1 and that same 40 health at level 50. It takes the same four hits to kill him at level 1 and level 50.
Now suppose that instead of that I make that attack increase in damage from 10 points to 100 points at level 50, and the minion increases to 400 health. Its still taking four swings to kill him: my attacks are still doing 25% of his health per swing. All I've done is moved the decimal place on the numbers: in fact I could lie about it and just *print* the numbers in the combat chat that way, while internally the numbers were still exactly the same.
That doesn't mean a level 1 can go attack and kill a level 50. You could still have level scalers that said when a level 1 attacks a level 50 their attacks are attenuated to only 1% of their normal strength or whatever, so it would still take 400 hits to kill that target.
Its just that this would be psychologically unacceptable to most players. My damage has to go up. And what I attack must get stronger than what I was attacking yesterday. So the game designers have to apply scaling tables to make everything get bigger, in the correct proportions. And as I mentioned, they actually scale health up faster than damage, so while we hit harder, the things we're hitting gain even more health than we gain damage, so in relative terms we actually get slightly weaker as we level.
This has nothing really to do with leveling and fighting different levels, because that can be addressed with combat modifiers. This is more of a case where the numbers the game *shows* to the players have to get bigger to signal increasing strength. They can't just show "hit for 25% of the minion's health" all the time. And if they actually said that and the number got smaller as you leveled, so that by level 50 you were hitting "for 12% of the minion's health" the players would be completely baffled.
[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
Not really: the purple patch would see to that.
What I'm talking about is that in a very real sense, health and damage go up mainly for vanity sake, not for any numerical game design reason. Suppose I have an attack that does 10 points of damage, and it does 10 points of damage from level 1 to level 50. And suppose a minion has 40 health at level 1 and that same 40 health at level 50. It takes the same four hits to kill him at level 1 and level 50. Now suppose that instead of that I make that attack increase in damage from 10 points to 100 points at level 50, and the minion increases to 400 health. Its still taking four swings to kill him: my attacks are still doing 25% of his health per swing. All I've done is moved the decimal place on the numbers: in fact I could lie about it and just *print* the numbers in the combat chat that way, while internally the numbers were still exactly the same. That doesn't mean a level 1 can go attack and kill a level 50. You could still have level scalers that said when a level 1 attacks a level 50 their attacks are attenuated to only 1% of their normal strength or whatever, so it would still take 400 hits to kill that target. Its just that this would be psychologically unacceptable to most players. My damage has to go up. And what I attack must get stronger than what I was attacking yesterday. So the game designers have to apply scaling tables to make everything get bigger, in the correct proportions. And as I mentioned, they actually scale health up faster than damage, so while we hit harder, the things we're hitting gain even more health than we gain damage, so in relative terms we actually get slightly weaker as we level. This has nothing really to do with leveling and fighting different levels, because that can be addressed with combat modifiers. This is more of a case where the numbers the game *shows* to the players have to get bigger to signal increasing strength. They can't just show "hit for 25% of the minion's health" all the time. And if they actually said that and the number got smaller as you leveled, so that by level 50 you were hitting "for 12% of the minion's health" the players would be completely baffled. |
This is actually a standard of game design in general. It's not so much about psychology as that it makes the math way easier. It's also the tradition of RPGs going back to Dungeons and Dragons. And actually a big reason to do it is because the increases in values are not proportional. Traditionally, the classes/archetypes numbers spread out as they level. Tankers/Fighters acquire more HP and Mages/Blasters acquire more damaging powers. If you tried to model this using standardized HP it would be very confusing, sort of like: "The enemy does 20% damage to a Mage at this level but 45% at this level but if he had hit a Fighter instead it would only do 10%." It's much easier to just say "You got hit for 10 damage" than deal with all of that.
Quote:
Actually, the health normalized model is the better one from a design perspective. It tells you what's actually happening. Take damage and health. The most important number is the ratio of damage to health, not either number separately. If its 0.25 at level one and smoothly decreases to 0.125 at level fifty, that tells me something about the game design. If all I have are the damage tables and health tables, I have to compute this myself, because those two tables separately tell me absolutely nothing.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
This is actually a standard of game design in general. It's not so much about psychology as that it makes the math way easier. It's also the tradition of RPGs going back to Dungeons and Dragons. And actually a big reason to do it is because the increases in values are not proportional. Traditionally, the classes/archetypes numbers spread out as they level. Tankers/Fighters acquire more HP and Mages/Blasters acquire more damaging powers. If you tried to model this using standardized HP it would be very confusing, sort of like: "The enemy does 20% damage to a Mage at this level but 45% at this level but if he had hit a Fighter instead it would only do 10%." It's much easier to just say "You got hit for 10 damage" than deal with all of that.
|
Which, by the way, I have spreadsheets that do just that. Its how I actually know that in fact we get offensively weaker as we level, and by exactly how much.
The math is always easier to get correct when designed around normalized standard scales. When it isn't done that way, weird mistakes tend to happen.
[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
Actually, the health normalized model is the better one from a design perspective. It tells you what's actually happening. Take damage and health. The most important number is the ratio of damage to health, not either number separately. If its 0.25 at level one and smoothly decreases to 0.125 at level fifty, that tells me something about the game design. If all I have are the damage tables and health tables, I have to compute this myself, because those two tables separately tell me absolutely nothing.
Which, by the way, I have spreadsheets that do just that. Its how I actually know that in fact we get offensively weaker as we level, and by exactly how much. The math is always easier to get correct when designed around normalized standard scales. When it isn't done that way, weird mistakes tend to happen. |
We may have to agree to disagree here. The problem with a model based purely on modifiers is actual damage amounts, as opposed to damage multipliers, have to be expressed based on the target that was hit. If the question is "How much actual damage does Power X do?" The answer isn't "100 points of damage" it's "between 15 and 5% to a Tanker and 25 and 38% to a Controller, depending on their level."
It's a lot easier, IMO, to just say it does a specific amount of damage and subtract that number from the target's HP. Players understand "100 points of damage" a lot more clearly than "some portion of your health that varies depending on your level and the equation that calculates how many total HP you would have if this were a game where HP were precalculated."
Except we don't see the same damage done to everyone, because some people have more resistance than others.
Quote:
You're talking about how the game is implemented. I'm talking about how the game should be designed. Those are two completely different things.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
We may have to agree to disagree here. The problem with a model based purely on modifiers is actual damage amounts, as opposed to damage multipliers, have to be expressed based on the target that was hit. If the question is "How much actual damage does Power X do?" The answer isn't "100 points of damage" it's "between 15 and 5% to a Tanker and 25 and 38% to a Controller, depending on their level."
It's a lot easier, IMO, to just say it does a specific amount of damage and subtract that number from the target's HP. Players understand "100 points of damage" a lot more clearly than "some portion of your health that varies depending on your level and the equation that calculates how many total HP you would have if this were a game where HP were precalculated." |
You have to start somewhere. Let's say you start with the minion health table. You make a spreadsheet and you put numbers for minion health from level 1 to level 55. You might even use an equation to generate those numbers.
But from there, the damage table for a standard player archetype (say, what we define as "1.0 damage modifier") should be computed relative to that table. It should be normalized to that table. You might decide that the damage of a scale 1.0 attack for a 1.0 modifier table should be 25% of minion health at level one and 10% of minion health at level 50, and then compute a formula to generate those numbers on a linear scale.
Then from there you decide that Bosses will start off with three times minion health at level one and rapidly increase to five times minion health at level 20 and then level off to six times minion health at level 55, and then generate equations to generate those tables.
From an initial generated table, the other tables get generated relative to that one, based on how you want the difficulty and other factors to scale in the game. This is the only real way to make reasonable targets and then actually try to hit them. If its just all random numbers, its virtually impossible to enforce any sort of relationship between them, and you get weird jumpy changes in difficulty, odd corner cases in scaling, and even exploitable glitches (like, say, being able to spawn level 1 AVs).
The models have to be normalized to make the relationships between the various numbers obvious and easy to enforce. Those models should then be able to generate all the actual numbers of the game automatically. What you're talking about is how the numbers are presented to the players, which has virtually nothing to do with how the numbers are modeled and engineered in the actual game design.
[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:
Eh, ya know. The game at the end. What's the end of a MMORPG? Level cap, you're at the end of a rope rather than an end of a book.
|
Originally Posted by TheWidower
You know, I've never understood this whole "Endgame" thing that people always ask for in an MMORPG. How exactly do you "end" a game when it's very nature requires it to be perpetual?
If you really want to be able to "end" your character's career as a hero, Villain, or Praetorian then you really have no further to look than the big red DELETE button. |
The end game in most MMOs is rainding, the vast majority of people that raid do it for loot, so that they can show off/improve their character/grind loot faster next time.
In CoH the traditional endgame is changed somewhat in that you don't need to 'raid' to get loot. However there are many paths to getting good loot within CoH. I personally would consider TFs as alternatives to raids. In fact, I prefer them.
Quote:
I love this stuff, but I'm odd like that.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Its all "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" aspects of game design that it is better for most players not to investigate too deeply, lest it hamper your ability to enjoy any game, much less this one.
|
Culex's resistance guide
Quote:
That's interesting coming from you, Arcana, because you're putting words in my mouth. I never said the problem was that people get too little recovery and the obvious solution was to increase recovery. What I said was that there is a problem with Stamina being too popular and "a solution" was necessary. I never specified what that solution would be, as I don't know what that solution would be. My only objective in looking for a solution to this in the first place is to see fewer people take Stamina and fewer people feel that they must. HOW that is achieved is irrelevant to the fact that it SHOULD be achieved.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
This is often stated as the reason to increase recovery: because most players take stamina (assuming this is true) there's obviously a problem that needs to be rectified by making stamina less "necessary."
That's false. Suppose tomorrow I were to add a passive power that could be slotted to add +50% damage to all your attacks constantly. I'm sure that would be pretty popular also. Question: if as many players took that power as took Stamina, would that prove that damage was too low and needed to be buffed? |
Quote:
| Exclusive options are, for the most part, required to have roughly equal value propositions in a well designed game. Non-exclusive options are not required to have that property, and stamina is not strictly speaking a component of an exclusive option (and engineering a specific example to make it appear to be such doesn't actually make it such). Non-exclusive options obey the laws of synergy which allow for certain options out of a group of non-exclusive options to be far more popular than others simply because their benefit is far more general or generally synergistic. |
You can't have everyone always taking the same power at the same level on every character and call this working as intended. If the obvious design consequences is that there is no choice perceived, then there should be no choice presented, because that's what it results in anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Yes, but again, this runs into the same problem - I have more to DO, but do I have more to ACHIEVE? I view the de-facto end game as my "retirement" time, and let me explain this before you get angry. Retirement, as I define it, is the time when, ideally, you no longer have to work and strive for achievements, and you can instead lean back and enjoy everything that you have earned thus far. I view end game in the same manner. The end of the game, i.e. level 50, is the time when I can stop trying to achieve things, and I can instead take my powers as amassed and use them for more content.|
Originally Posted by Cantatus
I think that's one of the issues I've had with hitting 50. When I've hit the level cap in other MMOs, it sort of opens up a whole new world to me. Granted, it's not the best world, but it feels like all that leveling had a point and now I can put all those spells and skills I learned to good use. With CoH, you just sort of run into a wall.
|
This comes into play with how level 50 content should be designed. Do we simply give people more tasks to partake in, such as new stories and new arcs, or do we give people more loot to grind for? Personally, I would prefer more arcs with no new rewards, because it means I don't have to worry about even more progress and I can rest on my laurels. I highly suspect that the Incarnate system will yank me out of that comfort zone. I just hope it's less of a horrible grind than what I saw in Beta.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
I feel that Stamina is not needed for early-game encounters, though once my characters get enough powers for an attack chain, and possibly toggles on top of that, Stamina is a requirement in many cases, unless you use a lot of inventions. But certainly not before the 20's or so. And part of me is perturbed that I have to sacrifice 3 powers to get that, but on most characters I don't lose too much to get a travel power and stamina, though 5 powers end up being delayed because of those two things.
Regarding the endgame, I'll admit that I would like all my established lvl 50 characters to be able to do something beyond the same lvl 45-50 missions and the same task forces, and I really have no interest in exemplaring them down to do other missions. And I am bored silly with farming. Just my particular take on how I want to play those characters.
I do feel that the road to 50 is much more interesting at this point, so I really don't do too much with the lvl 50's once they reach that goal.
I agree with the others - I'd love to see some endgame content so I can use those characters to their fullest, and have something to do. I don't necessarily need to do it for loot, but no doubt that will be the draw for others - which is fine, because that means more people who want to do endgame content, for me to team with.
I'll be honest, part of the few big factors I've been away since December 2008, is the lack of real end-game content. And Hami raids are often a real headache when they did occur, and some of the zones like the Shadow Shard - seriously, three zones of spacey floaty blah-edness?
Quote:
Off-topic a bit, but I remember mentioning your name some time recently, in the "Hey, whatever happened to Rooftop Raider?" sense. I still remember that video you showed me of Combat Jumping + Hurdle + Super Speed |
Originally Posted by Rooftop_Raider
I'll be honest, part of the few big factors I've been away since December 2008, is the lack of real end-game content. And Hami raids are often a real headache when they did occur, and some of the zones like the Shadow Shard - seriously, three zones of spacey floaty blah-edness?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Yeah, unfortunately I deleted all my Youtube videos, but I had some where I showed off my jousting in PI with my main (an energy/energy Blaster) and some demonstrations of MM vs MM comparisons, the survivability of FF Defenders, testing out various powers like Jump Kick right after it changed, some soloing with my second main (a MA/SR Scrapper), among other things.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Off-topic a bit, but I remember mentioning your name some time recently, in the "Hey, whatever happened to Rooftop Raider?" sense. I still remember that video you showed me of Combat Jumping + Hurdle + Super Speed
|
Really, I've missed this game, but it's been a really weird year and a half in my personal life (promotions, schedule changes, buying a house, all the kids in school, etc) but normally I've had this game to sort of cool off from time to time. In large part, Going Rogue, as well as Issue 18, brought me back. Though I17 was enticing, with Ultra Mode, and access to Dual Pistols and Demon Summoning.
I really hope to see more endgame content starting with I19 - as I have a dozen or so lvl 50's on Freedom and Virtue who I'd like to play again, in earnest.
Quote:
This.| HOW that is achieved is irrelevant to the fact that it SHOULD be achieved. |
Also this not a new discussion, it has been a topic for years. Here and there they do things that help (decreasing the cost of DA), but those are only band aid fixes, and whats needed is stitches.
Getting stam at 20 dosen't hurt like it once did, because I am a 69+ vet. I get a travel power at lvl 6, that takes a bit of pain out of swift, health, then stamina.
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Posting on my second account because my main won't be resubbing.
I've played this game since launch and I am up to my eyeballs in 50's. I love them all. I bought GR when it was announced because it sounded like they were going to have something to do.
I would NOT have purchased GR if I had known at the time that it was going to be for levels 1-20. I have no desire to whiff and puff my way through lowbie land again. By the time I heard otherwise, well it's a bit late for a refund, eh? In the future, I'll wait until after release before purchasing any CoX product if at all.
I'm glad some folks are enjoying it, and I'm happy that there's a new starting zone, but it's just not my thing.
If they can make a living out of people resubbing for one month, once or twice a year, good for them but GR didn't really do much for me. Most in my SG feel the same.
Later Gators...
Quote:
Um, what I said was:|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
That's interesting coming from you, Arcana, because you're putting words in my mouth. I never said the problem was that people get too little recovery and the obvious solution was to increase recovery. What I said was that there is a problem with Stamina being too popular and "a solution" was necessary. I never specified what that solution would be, as I don't know what that solution would be.
|
Quote:
| This is often stated as the reason to increase recovery: because most players take stamina (assuming this is true) there's obviously a problem that needs to be rectified by making stamina less "necessary." |
Quote:
|
I have absolutely no idea what this paragraph even says. It seems to suggest that, with the right application of spin, Stamina's popularity can be presented as being normal and acceptable. However, when I look at a power that everyone feels they should take, this in itself is evidence that something must be done. Higher recovery, lower bonus for Stamina, better alternatives, stronger endurance reduction enhancements, faster-recharging Rest, just SOMETHING. You can't have everyone always taking the same power at the same level on every character and call this working as intended. If the obvious design consequences is that there is no choice perceived, then there should be no choice presented, because that's what it results in anyway. |
Quote:
| Good game design dictates that any one choice should not overshadow all others, and that if it does, steps should be taken to narrow the gap. |
The converse of this fundamental design fallacy exists in CO's power selection system. Because prerequisites are weak and choice exclusivity essentially doesn't exist at all, players are ironically funneled into very self-similar sets of choices overall. No matter how much you try to distinguish yourself, no choice you make ever steers you in any direction, so you end up covering the same ground.
It also makes the game less alt friendly as a consequence, because there are less choices that are consequential to builds. If nothing else, I have CO to thank for providing me with an exemplar of this design principle, whereas before I could only talk about it hypothetically. As far as I know, they were the first ones to make this mistake in a large enough scale to reference, and I can't imagine anyone being foolish enough to make it ever again.
[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.)
I'm also unimpressed with GR
Lvl 1-20 world only.
Mostly just a repainted world.
No new AT's.
No novel power sets.
No mission adjustment.
No access to the AE.
No access to SG/VGs.
No Paper/Radio missions.
No Mayhem missions (Thus no temp travel powers.).
Clutsy contact mechanics, which includes having to double pop them, and them not telling you anything when you have completed all of their missions, but are not at sufficient level to go on to a new contact.
The small number of missions that allow you to complete all of the contacts missions and not being at level to pass on to next contact (Completed all of the starter missions at level 3.). I find this to be very unsat, being there is only one fricken starter contact to write missions for.
Being level restricted from new contacts with no obvious recourse but to grind out xp.
No means to pass back and forth between the GR world and the CoH and CoV worlds, thus post 20 blue/red not able exempt down to experience the GR world. This is actually a big deal, it means that GR is just a fancy 1-20 tutorial.
I bought the preorder of GR so after you discount the first free month from CoV, I paid five bucks more for CoV. I had already been playing CoH so CoV was not a standalone game, but an expansion for me (Despite how it was marketed.), and I would bet this was so for a high percentage of those who purchased CoV, when it was released.
For my bucks I got a 1-50 world that was very graphically different than the hero world. I got way to many new costume parts for me to even come close to remembering. I got one AT that was totally unlike any hero AT (MM). I got two AT's that you thought were similar to what appeared to be their closest counter part until you started to play them (Dom, Stalker). All of the ATs had an inherent that was an intrical part of their AT, and changed the flavor of the AT's in comparison to their counter part. I got multiple new power sets, not just for the MM, Dom, and Stalker, but for the Corrupter as well (Can't remember if there were new sets created for Brute, or just a mix of Tank and Scrapper sets. ). Paper and Mayhem missions were introduced with CoV, including temp travel powers. I got a world that played very differently than it's counterpart, so there was some major learning curve going on. I found very fast that grouping in CoV was a very different experience than grouping in CoH, especially in the mayhem missions.
Forgot something else CoV introduced, because it's not my thing. PvP and joined PvP zones.
What have I gotten from GR. I've gotten another 1-20 world that’s very restricted, not really novel, and actually feels like it has stepped back a few CoHv years. I got a few more costume parts. I got side switching at the 20+ game with the mechanics and missions that go along with that. I got 4 new power sets, none of them requiring much of a learning curve (Not saying I don’t like some of them, just that they are not novel.). Global email and joined markets might be because of GR, but they are not purchased with GR. Neither is CoP.
So how about you proponents of GR list what I might have missed that GR gives me for my 30 bucks, because I'm not seeing it. It had better be a big list to match what CoV gave me for my 35 bucks.
Quote:
You then went on to say "that's false" in the very next paragraph, which was also in the quote in my post.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
That's virtually an exact paraphrase of what you just said above.
|
Quote:
| Good game design doesn't say that. Good game design says if you have to choose between A and B, and A and B are exclusive options - you can have one but not the other - then in general they should each ultimately offer similar net value relative to each other. Otherwise, that choice is flawed from a gameplay perspective. But when you're given a choice to pick 10 out of 20, there is no game imperative that says A must equal B must equal C must equal D must equal Z, because the opportunity costs of selection are far lower when the choice of A doesn't preclude B. |
Let's agree with your argument that non-exclusive choices don't have to be roughly equal. That much I agree with. If you give people 9 bad choices and one REALLY good choice, all of them for the same opportunity cost, can you really call that a choice? Because I can't. Good game design, and I'm going to insist on this, dictates that if game mechanics choices exist, they should be meaningful. If game mechanics choices are "no-brainers," then they should no be choices. Why? Because they point of a choice is to give options, but when only one or two options out of a dozen are good, you don't HAVE options. All that's left is a sucker trap the only practical effect of which is to introduce the danger of NOT making the right choice and thus harming your own gaming experience.
If Stamina is a no-brainer, then it should not be a choice. You may not see it as a no-brainer, I certainly don't see it as a no-brainer, but last time I saw a person without Stamina who wasn't me isn't even on my calendar any more. This is where we get lost in game design mechanics vs game reality.
Fact: Most people feel that Stamina is necessary. Fact: Most people take Stamina. Fact: Most people feel that there is no alternative. This in itself suggests that something about how the game's basic design interacts with Stamina is broken. If damn near your entire playerbase is always taking a single power every time, then something is wrong. How that is to be "fixed" is up in the air, but the basic approaches that I can see consist of reducing the power of Stamina, increasing the opportunity cost of Stamina, reducing the need for Stamina or introducing alternatives to Stamina.
A choice is not a choice if the system makes it for you, and a choice that's not a choice is broken.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
I don't know about anyone else, but when GR was close to release i was under no illusions that Praetoria would be anything but 1-20 only. I get the feeling, reading these posts, that some people seem to think they've been misled. Maybe they feel that way, but i for one, do not, as i had a perfect understanding of what was going down.
I'll admit though, that GR does miss out the 20+ gap, filling it with tip missions, which, fun as they are, aren't anything like a new TF or a couple of new arcs.
Whilst i am disappointed at not being able to take my existing characters to Praetoria, i hardly think that GR was a waste. I've had fun levelling up new characters in Praetoria and for people to essentially boycott what the Devs have put a lot of work into because they didn't get what they want seems, in my opinion, unfair. After all, it wasn't named City of Heroes: <insert name here> edition.
However, i am a firm believer of 'The best is always saved until last' and i'd rather wait for new content than have it thrown at me all at once. I mean, you wouldn't have all the best bits of a movie crammed at the beginning and the rest just left as filler. After all, if the Devs had decided to work on Praetoria 20-50, i doubt it'd have been released the day it was. At least now, we can see the quality of things to come.
I was doing some playthroughs of City of Heroes. Now they will serve as memories of a better time ...
Quote:
Yes, it's an entirely new starter experince not just a revamp of current lowbie content, (which I would also love to see) but a new world we can explore.|
Originally Posted by Jeuraud
Lvl 1-20 world only.
|
Quote:
| Mostly just a repainted world. |
Quote:
| No new AT's. |
Quote:
| No novel power sets. |
One of those was Dual Pistols which introduced beautiful animatons a new mechanic to the player, the ability to swap damage type and secondary effects of all powers; I'd call that new and never seen before.
Another Demon Summoning, introduced a new type of MM henchman where each pet has its own unique theme and attacks. Along with this the attacks featured entirely new and very well done animations. I'd say that's novel.
The third, Kinetic Melee gave every attack the ability to reduce a target's damage and Power Siphon giving the ability to drain enemy damage and give it to yourself. Something else I'd say is new to players.
Electric control I'd say was the least novel of them all but still introduced a large -END component to a control set.
These four new powersets are spread out across all ATs. Meaning every single AT aside form epics got a new powerset to play with.
Quote:
| No mission adjustment. |
Quote:
| No access to the AE. |
Quote:
|
No access to SG/VGs. No Paper/Radio missions. No Mayhem missions (Thus no temp travel powers.). |
Quote:
| Clutsy contact mechanics, which includes having to double pop them |
Quote:
| The small number of missions that allow you to complete all of the contacts missions and not being at level to pass on to next contact (Completed all of the starter missions at level 3.). |
Quote:
| Being level restricted from new contacts with no obvious recourse but to grind out xp. |
Quote:
| No means to pass back and forth between the GR world and the CoH and CoV worlds, thus post 20 blue/red not able exempt down to experience the GR world. This is actually a big deal, it means that GR is just a fancy 1-20 tutorial. |
Quote:
| I had already been playing CoH so CoV was not a standalone game, but an expansion for me (Despite how it was marketed.), and I would bet this was so for a high percentage of those who purchased CoV, when it was released. |
Quote:
| For my bucks I got a 1-50 world that was very graphically different than the hero world |
Quote:
| got one AT that was totally unlike any hero AT (MM). I got two AT's that you thought were similar to what appeared to be their closest counter part until you started to play them (Dom, Stalker). All of the ATs had an inherent that was an intrical part of their AT, and changed the flavor of the AT's in comparison to their counter part. I got multiple new power sets, not just for the MM, Dom, and Stalker, but for the Corrupter as well (Can't remember if there were new sets created for Brute, or just a mix of Tank and Scrapper sets. ). |
Quote:
| Paper and Mayhem missions were introduced with CoV, including temp travel powers |
Quote:
| got a world that played very differently than it's counterpart, so there was some major learning curve going on. |
Quote:
| What have I gotten from GR. I've gotten another 1-20 world thats very restricted, not really novel, and actually feels like it has stepped back a few CoHv years. I got a few more costume parts. I got side switching at the 20+ game with the mechanics and missions that go along with that. I got 4 new power sets, none of them requiring much of a learning curve (Not saying I dont like some of them, just that they are not novel.). Global email and joined markets might be because of GR, but they are not purchased with GR. Neither is CoP. |
Quote:
| So how about you proponents of GR list what I might have missed that GR gives me for my 30 bucks, because I'm not seeing it. It had better be a big list to match what CoV gave me for my 35 bucks. |
Quote:
Well right here is your problem. It's not the devs fault that you didn't buy CoV when it was released. The fact that you waited until the price dropped until it was almost half of what it cost on release is beyond their control. If you wanted to pay a comparable price for Going Rogue you should have waited just like you did with CoV.|
Originally Posted by Jeuraud
So how about you proponents of GR list what I might have missed that GR gives me for my 30 bucks, because I'm not seeing it. It had better be a big list to match what CoV gave me for my 35 bucks.
|
When CoV was released the direct download was $50. bucks and the boxed Collector's DVD Edition was $60. bucks. There's no way you paid $35. for it when it was released, and you can't complain about the prices each cost when you get one out of the bargain bin and the other fresh of the shelf the day it comes out.
Quote:
I repeat, because you've given me nothing else to counter: this is not a true game design principle. Most people feel damage enhancements are necessary and slot them. This does not mean there exists a problem with damage of some kind. The principle above doesn't work as a general rule.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Fact: Most people feel that Stamina is necessary. Fact: Most people take Stamina. Fact: Most people feel that there is no alternative. This in itself suggests that something about how the game's basic design interacts with Stamina is broken. If damn near your entire playerbase is always taking a single power every time, then something is wrong.
|
If you want to assert this as a good game design principle by axiom, I can't construct an argument to counter an axiom, but I'm also pretty certain the devs won't honor it either.
[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:
Anyone who thinks City of Villains had level 1-50 content must have bought it after Issue 7 came out, which was over seven months after CoV released.
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
When CoV was released the direct download was $50. bucks and the boxed Collector's DVD Edition was $60. bucks. There's no way you paid $35. for it when it was released, and you can't complain about the prices each cost when you get one out of the bargain bin and the other fresh of the shelf the day it comes out.
|
[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.)
CoH's model is much more simple and makes sense. In my opinion, it also makes the progression more rewarding as I don't have to reach a level and debate if my Controller should upgrade my Blind ability to Blind II or take a new ability I don't yet have. Every time you get to a level where you can pick a power, you know you're getting something new and increasing your arsenal.