Soloability and End Game

I missed this. When/Where was this posted?

That's the bit that makes me think that the Trials will be structured like the Praetorian zone events - on a timer, with anyone able to join at any time during the raid period, teamed or solo, and getting a reward based on their contribution to the raid.
They already said back when I19 and the Incarnate system was first announced that Incarnate content would be in the form of zone events, which to start with would eb base din paretoria - and so far, we know there's a BAF raid, and probably a raid on Mother Mayhem's asylum.
I think they'll either go with an open world raid, like the Mothership raid, or an instanced raid, like the Winter Realm - both of which need players to do something in a zone to either trigger the unlocking of a section of that zone, or spawn an instanced map that's accessed from that zone.
They've also saids that the BAF raid requires 12-24 players - they didn't say anything about needing one-and-a-half teams - if it was based on teams, I think they'd make it for 16-24, or 16-32, or just say it needed 3 teams, for example.

I'm not really sure that can be called a mistake when it's being used by every MMO right up to WoW

It's not a mistake for some of them to do it. It's a mistake for all of them to.

Frankly, at this point, MMO developers should be trying like the dickens to do anything but what WoW is doing - because if their players wanted what WoW was doing, the chances are very very high that they're just going to play WoW.

The video game industry is in a very peculiar place right now; production costs are so high that everyone does the same thing because it's a "sure bet", and yet they're leaving out so many potential customers - and forcing themselves into very competitive markets - by doing so. Doing the same thing as everyone else is not a very reliable way to pull in more customers; you have to be sure you're doing that same thing better than everyone else, and that everyone knows you're doing it better, to have a chance at pulling customers from your competitors.

Doing something different, pulling in a new customer base instead of trying to siphon off portions of the old, may be a bit riskier (you could design something no one wants, after all), but when you've already got a track record for doing that, it's a much safer bet. Nintendo knew this, and did this, and they're now the kings of the consoles again.

For City of Heroes, which has long bucked many MMO trends (intentionally or not) to decide now they need to be like everyone else is peculiar at best, and destructive at worst.

Stop. Just stop. This is pure semantics and you know it. Anything that requires multiple people in the same place at the same time working toward the same goal is GROUP CONTENT, whether those people need to be actually be on a team or not.

Can I join a Mothership raid, CoP, or Hami raid without joining a team? Yes. Can I do one whenever I feel like it, even if nobody else wants to do one? No. Therefore they are group content.

The existing Praetorian zone events are entirely different, in that it's possible to do them all by yourself. They are solo AND group content.

Would you call lemmings following each other over the side of a cliff a mistake? Just curious...

Just because everyone else does something does not mean it is necessary or even advisable for you to do it.

To truly stand out and not be "just another kid on the block" requires innovation and uniqueness. Not copy and pasting what everyone else does. Sadly it seems the mmo market has much in common with the pop music market these days.

That's only until I20 comes out - in I20, there'll be Incarnate Trials that will also drop the rare and ultra rare salvage.

I would call that a stunt staged by Disney filmmakers. Now we all get to play "what do you call someone who wings around analogies that are known to be fake in a failed attempt to disprove the point he doesn't understand to start with?" I'm not sure Disney has done much with that.

I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. What I am trying to point out which i pretty much said in the post your quoted but conveniently cut off in your quote was that:

Is adding group content a good thing? Sure it can be, but adding just because "everyone else is doing it!" is not the best of reasons to do so.

Incidentally from your very own link, this sentence seems to support what I am trying to say Sure it seems like a good bet to go with the flow and do what seems natural. But it can have unintended consequences in the doing if you don't stop to think it through for yourself instead of just doing what everyone else does.

I'm getting into this late, but wasn't part of this discussion that the incarnate trials cannot be "soloed"? You can do them solo but there still needs to be a group to participate? Or do I have that wrong as well?

A good example would be cocaine.

exactly!

They haven't decided to be like everyone else. They've decided to do something you don't like that you think is like everyone else. There's a difference. And the fundamental difference is that other people cannot and will not act with your perspective, but theirs.

You can ask them to be different. You can't ask them to be different as you specifically define different. Furthermore, this game predates WoW, and a lot of the systems that were added much later (like the invention system, for example) go back a long way conceptually and only arrived when resources were available to actually do them. Its entirely possible some form of end game and level 50 power progression system was being kicked around long before many of the games you think CoX is emulating actually shipped. I know for a fact and its obvious to anyone that looks at the systems introduced over time that the NC acquisition created a lot of opportunities to create things that the devs didn't just think up on the spot, but were things they were interested in doing for a long time.

Some things are unavoidably similar in any two MMOs. There are only so many different kinds of mechanics you can use to construct solo and grouped content. But while I'm certain different dev teams see what each other are doing and try to learn from that, each one tries to put those lessons to work with their own unique design perspective.

This notion that our devs are just trying to be like everyone else presupposes that they don't have a mind of their own: that they don't actually want to do what they are doing now because they think its the right thing to do. Its fundamentally their decision, and they should get all the credit and all of the blame for it. But to say they are doing it to be like everyone else is insulting without cause. It would be like me saying you're only complaining because its fashionable.

I know at times it may seem I am on one side or the other but I have found I agree with everything Arcanaville posts. I also appreciate the way in which you post Arcanaville. You aren't snarky or rude or overly emotional. You state your thoughts succinctly and to the point.

When I was posting about "doing things just because everyone else does it" I wasn't inferring that the devs were necessarily doing that. Only that the posters saying "all the other mmo's do it" shouldn't use that as validation for anything. Perhaps my ability to convey my thoughts just isn't quite what it used to be these days. Age can creep up on you when you least expect it

This is not a semantic difference, because it defines the boundaries of what you think doesn't count as solo content. We've been discussing it primarily within the boundaries of not teaming, and bringing psychology and practicality into it: some people do not want to actually join a team, or cannot organize one, or have scheduling limitations that might require them to drop team at a moments notice (I'm an on-call person: I understand that requirement well). Now you're saying you also include any content where you cannot initiate it and complete it on your own. That's no longer an objection about teaming. That's an objection about every single player having 100% control over content execution in an MMO. I think there's some grey area when it comes to accommodating people for whom teaming itself is problematic. Its something I've put a significant amount of thought into how a compromise might be struck. But that's over the line for me. I would oppose any attempt to implement such a design philosophy.

Why this is a fundamental deal-breaker for me is that this philosophy is mutually exclusive with the concept of dynamic environments, where the players collectively decide what's happening within the game. Of logical necessity, it has to be true within such environments that content is gated to collective player activity - a minor example would be players destroying the pylons in RWZ. To disallow such innovation would be unnecessarily stifling, and to require mandatory alternate paths around such gatekeepers would be both inefficient and trivializing.

And the important part you cut off was:
You are trying to use analogies without justifying that they actually fit this situation. Sure the game is adding more group content. It does that every time it launches a new Task Force. Sure the new group content is on the front page of the website. All the new stuff goes onto the front page of the website. The front page of the website is there in order to advertise the new stuff that's coming. None of this means that the solo player is getting thrown under the bus.

Now, I'm going to go ahead and point out that Positron mentioned that soloability was a goal of the Incarnate System. I'll also point out that Black Scorpion mentioned specifically that they are looking for ways to fully experience the alpha slot even if you solo. I'll point out that second measure mentioned accessibility to everyone as a goal of the new system. I'll also point out that it has been mentioned repeatedly that the fallout from the "skills system" taught the entire staff that mentioning specifics that weren't well underway is a great way to get the community all up in their grill.

Look at the flashback system. Back when people were begging for it, people expected some contact to have a level slider that you could set and then run to contacts in that range, which is boring. Instead we got Ouroboros, which was a hugely popular gameplay AND story expansion with its own narrative, badges, and place in the lore. People wanted a way to switch sides, "like a task force or something." Instead of a single, repeatable-and-thus-quickly-growing-dull task force, we got the very expandable tip system and an entire new world to pop around in, both of which have some of the best content this game has seen, which is very interesting. This team is establishing a history of letting things stew until they are actually interesting, instead of some boring "oh fine 100 shards equals a notice whatever." Maybe they're working on a new arc, maybe some kind of tie-in with ouro where you have to jaunt around different level ranges to assemble a notice or track one down, maybe something like the solo morality missions in Praetoria, combining tips and incarnates for the solo player...who knows.

But what's being suggested is that after they have said, repeatedly, that they are looking to implement ways for solo characters to participate in the Incarnate system they really mean "hahahah eat it soloers!" instead of "we want interesting things to do whenever possible, not just systems shoehorned in all awkward."

Anecdotes can't prove a theory, so they are not very strong statements when used to support an argument. But they can act as a counter-example to a theory, and can be devastating when used to disprove one. For example, if I were to say "adding raid content is a good idea, look at all the other MMOs that have it" that's a weak statement. Just because others have it doesn't mean its a good idea, even if its all of them. However, saying "adding raid content is a bad idea, it always ruins the game for casual players" can be trivially countered by saying "WoW is considered and targeted for casual players, and it has tons of raid content. QED." That's a very strong statement that the theory isn't always true. And if it isn't always true, the burden is on the person stating to demonstrate convincingly that it is *ever* true, given that it can't be simply logically true - if it was logically true, it would be always true.

It is in that sense that anecdotes have to be viewed. They are not simply always weak or always strong. It depends on how they are used. If they are used to try to overgeneralize, they are weak. If they are offered in a context where a single example is all that's needed, they can be very strong.

Perhaps you've misinterpreted my intent. I am NOT one of those people who believe the devs are just going to tell the soloers to stuff it. If you look at some of my previous posts I firmly believe that what Black Scorpion said is true and will come to fruition. I think the devs have done a pretty bang up job so far and I have every confidence they will continue to do so. What Puzzles me are the people who continue to believe otherwise despite being told that solo options are being investigated.

You take issue with my analogy I can understand that though I think you might be over analyzing it just a tad. >_> As I said my point was that the people here posting about "doing things cause every other mmo does it" isn't really the best way to validate their position. If my analogy didn't quite make that clear I apologize.

Here:

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...31&postcount=2

Where did he say that? I'm pretty sure he just said that they were investigating ways for solo players to engage with the Incarnate system?

You must do marvelously at public speaking I wish I could convey my thoughts as eloquently as you do You really do break things down in a very logical manner.

Thanks! I am not sure why searching didn't bring that up for me... ah well I appreciate it!

Yes, it is a semantic difference, because a group activity that you do not need to actually join a team for addresses none of the concerns people have with a lack of a solo path.

Let's say I have trouble organizing a team to run a TF. Would I not have even MORE trouble organizing a "team" two to three times the size? Let's say I might need to run at a moment's notice. Does this not automatically exclude me from any task that gives a reward upon completion? Let's say I don't enjoy playing with large groups of people I don't know. I'm playing with even MORE people in a multi-team event, with an even greater chance that I don't know them. Let's say I'm not a very good player and feel left behind on teams. Well then in that case I probably do need a team to get any reward at all in an event where reward is determined by participation. Let's say I avoid teaming because my computer is old and lags on teams. If I double or triple the people, my contribution is limited to random button mashing.

It all depends on how those events pan out, of course. Who knows (except of course people who aren't allowed to talk about it), maybe it'll be like the Mothership, where I can bop into a raid in progress, whack a few Rikti on the fringes, get some Vanguard merits, and leave when I feel like it. It still doesn't address the concerns of people who play at off-peak hours, but it is more accessible to some. Or maybe it WILL be like the Praetorian zone events, although I'm not holding my breath. Or it'll be like Hami which for some people is made of the distilled essence of all the bad parts of 20 ITFs. Considering the only multi-team trial currently in the game is closer to Hami than the other two, I'm not getting my hopes up.