WST -- Ill-conceived.

Possibly. Or it might not come in 2-3 issues or ever. I think that's the issue.

It's a rare opportunity, but a satisfying one.


I wasn't trying to give the impressions of inveterate soloists being a mammoth block of the population, or even one that should be catered to. As you note, there aren't likely to be many players THAT opposed to teaming. But I believe there are a fair number of people that like to solo, prefer to solo and who would be annoyed to some greater or lesser extent by this level gating.

The devs have a better grasp of the numbers involved than I ever will and I'm sure they'll use their best judgement. I'm stating my preference and presenting what arguments I've made in the spirit of contradicting the rythmic chant of "deal with it losers" coming from the Purity Police in the bleachers.

And speaking only for myself, a game design trend line drifting toward industry norms is cause for concern. I play this game because I like this game, the more it hews to MMO orthodoxy the less appealing it becomes.

Or the world could end tomorrow.
The point I've been trying to make is that the devs are aware of the concerns of the dedicated soloers. It's early, *very* early, in the system. They *never* announce future content until they have something concrete. Give them a chance to get to that point and they'll tell us what we want to know. All the "tell us now we want it now" isn't going to accomplish anything but get people worked up into a tizzy. They'll tell us their plans once they have something to tell us.

Well I know a lot of people that have come back since they are actually putting time into doing End-Game content.

Also since Posi and WW and heading two teams of devs from what it sounds. There should be no issue.

And again, that this is their game, they decide what is best for the game. If they want to focus a little bit of time to get some of the kinks out with multi End-Game to help people that want to stay around longer, which would bring new health into the game for some.

While other wait for X,Y, and Z. You cannot please everyone...but you can build a strong base and build from that.

I did mean I19. Although to be honest, I wouldn't classified CoP as a new tf either, it's actually turning on the old trial that was around I6 or I7? Same with Calvin Scott getting turned on (how did I miss that, doodz!).

I19 had three new story arcs? Hmm, I'll be honest, I only saw Ramiel, and while there is technically a hero and a villain version, they are practically identical. Ah Vincent Ross and Cooling, I see. My level bias blinded me to them. Which is unforunate on my part. Thank you.

You made a good point, and called me out when I factually inaccurate, I do appreciate that. It is, after all, the only way I'll learn .

At the moment, if running them meant I could get a Notice, yes, I would.

My agenda is "getting a Notice without running on a team". It might change after I get that satisfied, but until then, that's what I'm focused on.

Then your agenda should be patience. It takes time for projects to be finished. As always patience is a virtue.

Its a question of degree. We didn't used to have loot in any significant form, standard enhancements notwithstanding. But I think its fair to say the invention system was a good addition to the game. Sure, as with all loot systems it can encourage bad behavior in some, but it doesn't *require* players to expend huge amounts of inf making builds that everyone else now considers mandatory in performance. Heck, one of my strongest builds is one of the cheapest in my Kat/Invuln. No purples, no PvP, and at the moment maybe one LotG (more coming eventually, but I keep forgetting to go back and buy them). The build is still the same build I put in at I9 release in fact.

We also did not have non-tradeable items, or bind on pickup/bind on equip logic. But I don't think things like Candy Canes, Vanguard Merits, or even Shards (in and of themselves) have significantly hurt the game. They've been subsumed into the culture of the game without significantly damaging it.

In a sense, what the devs are doing now isn't just a change that can be argued to be "like other MMOs" in terms of the details which we are discussing now, but even in terms of existence. One way this game was "different" was in literally not having an end game at all. I'm sure some people interpreted that absence as both deliberate (rather than a lack of resources) and beneficial. No matter how solo-friendly, no matter at what difficulty, and no matter with what benefits, there are actual players that think the lack of an endgame itself was a way we were better than other MMOs. No treadmill at 50: you can "complete" an alt, and move on to another one. The question is never just a question of being different, but being different in the ways you want to be different. Do we want to be different in always having a solo path introduced simultaneously with all teamed paths to all rewards within the end game? Why not go all the way and decide to be different by never adding any further progress to the game? That's not a rhetorical question. There's at least one player that makes the argument that the existence of an end game in and of itself detracts from the game's simplicity. And in the past there were many other players who, prior to the devs actually announcing they were going to make an end game, would have agreed with him that this was a strength of the game.

Its so easy to say just make sure that whatever you add to the game is something no one will object to, because a lot of people implicitly assume that while different people want different things, they all want more things. Not everyone does. Are the people who don't want endless progression at the top less deserving than the people who want an explicit solo path at the top? That is a rhetorical question: of course they aren't. Because its not a question of deserving. We don't decide who's deserving of attention when we update a game. We decide what will be in the best interests of the game overall, knowing we can't please everyone.

MMOs are a diverse set of games. No matter what the devs do, unless they never add anything new to the game ever again it will always be possible to point to another MMO and claim Paragon Studios is "just" copying them. I think, however, the Incarnate system itself is unique (so far as I know) in terms of what its going to ultimately do, and the end game constellation as a whole is unique in many ways. The fact that it contains raids can't be just dismissed as genre copying: MMOs have only so many kinds of content in terms of cooperative play: there's solo content, teamed content, multi-teamed cooperative content, general cooperative content, faction play, server-wide cooperative content, and player vs player content. And every single one of those existed in some form prior to City of Heroes even launching. No matter what we do, we will be using mechanical elements that have already been invented. And dimensionally speaking, at some point when you add more challenging content, it has to be balanced around teams. The reason is fundamental, particularly in City of Heroes: every archetype and every powerset combination has weaknesses. Once content gets beyond a certain level of complexity, it begins to target too many of them for a single player to be able to overcome. The only way to make content harder without making it more complex is to simply scale the numbers bigger, which is what the difficulty sliders do. But that's not the sort of challenge many players find attractive.

None of this precludes a solo path alternative. But its not easy to build for a number of reasons. It can quickly degenerate to trivial farming (something that is often completely unavoidable) and it can be very difficult to balance against the reward generation rate in the teamed content. It can be easy to make the mistake of making a solo path that is tuned for solo progress rates that inadvertently creates an exploitable teamed path that is even faster, and contrawise it can be just as easy to make a solo path that exists but is impractical to execute. And everyone thinks they have the easy solution to this one: just make one they are personally comfortable with, and handwave all other problems away as being unimportant.

The devs don't have that option.

My job involves doing a lot of installations of programs. A lot. I'm well-versed in patience.

Being patient when you have no idea that work is being done, that progress is being made, that what you're waiting for is actually in the works is unreasonable. Sometimes an installation stalls, and if you're just patient, you get nowhere. You have to proactively work to correct whatever hold up is causing the stall, and just being patient isn't going to fix anything.

That's why a lot of installations have progress bars; they allow you to know something is actually happening (the best also include actual information about exactly what the installer is doing). One of the most annoying trends I've seen recently is installations with progress bars wholly unattached to the actual progress of the installation - they just keep running and running, regardless of whether the installation is moving forward or not. You have no way of knowing whether the installation has stalled or is just extremely long. They might make the inexperienced feel better, but they don't really do much to help the experienced user know what's going on.

The developers have alternated between a complete lack of progress bars and meaningless progress bars unattached from actual progress. In either case, "just be patient" is the same thing as wishing or praying for a miracle.

Maybe the devs could add something like this to the forum banner, so solo players could be updated on their progress towards catering for their needs?

I think I might, in hindsight, agree.

I am taking out most of the installation...cause I do deal with that, and I know patience is a common practice until it craps out...not just stalls cause it needs to take time.

Just being patient means one thing and one thing only, being patient. To say it is equivalent to wishing and miracles is a long stretch to say the least. The idea of wishing for something that is completely irrelevant or self-absorbed, it does nothing to help any cause, that is showing great impatience.

I wish all my chars were at 50 and fully alpha loaded is a large wish, but the only way I am going to do that is with patience and working it out. Then miracles are something on another level, which is used to much as just common speech no a days. Still the idea in this context shows great impatience once again, and self-absorbed ideas you need this now or a terrible fate will come to you.

None of this is they case. I know my from work expierence I deal with troubleshooting large networks that feed towns, cities, provinces, and some countries. If something happens breaks out in the field, I do not have control how it is fixed, how long it takes to fix, and when it will be completed.

I could say "Well this looks like it is only small it should only take a hour to fix." Well it turned out it was larger than I thought and took 12 hours to fully complete. What would happen if I told a customer 1 hr and it turned into 12? They would be furious with me, and I would be in a lot of trouble.

So with that in mind. I look at the issue, with everything I know, I take that information and hand it off. Once it is out of my hands I have to be patient, since it is out of my hands.

This i just the same, we have the basic information they are telling us and we are waiting for an update on the situation from them. It is called being patient cause if you are not, well it could delay information, or just turn into nothing since people take information out of context all the time.

We just learned more of the Animal Pack today. What did we know before this next to nothing. People were patient and they got their information in due time, now everyone is in anticipation for the release. What they are doing for the incarnate system and i20 and beyond is just the same.

They will give us information when they are ready to give info no later and no less.

Actually, the second most annoying trend I've seen are installers that without warning attempt to download massive amounts of additional files from the internet in the middle of the install. If your installer is 281k, I can take a guess. If your installer is 157Mb, and then it downloads an additional 382Mb in the middle of the install, and you don't say this anywhere, I will make your developers pay.

The *most* annoying trend I've seen are installers that get 90% of the way through an install, check for something, fail that check, and then completely back out of the install automatically.

On a scale of one to ten, that one's a twelve.

I don't know. I would think the incarnate system is more simplistic than the invention system from a player viewpoint. If i cared more than a "round peg insert to round hole" attitude with IOs, i would need to have a spreadsheet or a program made by a 3rd party to make any meaningful build decisions.

Levels of necessity aside, between those two systems i'd put inventions as more of a detraction to the game's simplicity.

Recently had a lot of problems with one of those. The worst part? It was our virus protection program.

We have a new version now that doesn't do that any more.

The most annoying trend I have seen (from my world) is people that do not know what/will not do a traceroute. Of course since they use a PC/tablet/smartphone they know instantly how their connection works.

IOs are definitely more complex than the Incarnate System, I'll agree there. But I think the level of necessity aspect is what changes how they affect the overall game. A complex system that is unarguably optional changes the overall image less than a significantly-less complex system that is arguably non-optional.

At least as far as I'm concerned. With IOs, I can use them or not use them and still get a feeling of completion. With end-game, not using it robs me of that feeling.

He's right. I hate when bugs fly up my nose too.

Speaking only for myself as well, you're not the only one. The exact same things run through my mind in all of Nethergoat's posts in this thread.

And yes, of course it's a question of degree. It may very well be that we are the only two players of CoH that feel this way, in which case it would be economic suicide to take our feedback too seriously. It may very well be more commercially profitable to create an orthodox MMO clone with endgame treadmill at the cost of losing a subset of the players who supported CoH in the past because we felt what it was doing was not akin to orthodox MMOs and innovatively different in a manner that pleased us.

It doesn't change the fact that I feel the need to chime in on the forums now and then to voice my opinions, possibly seek validation from others who may feel the same as I, and potentially contribute to feedback that may influence the devs into considering options or directions that may not have occurred to them. Because I do care about the game, and would not like to be lost as a customer.

Just speaking for myself though, the current uncertainty is hard for me to decide one way or another to stay or to go, to show my support of the game's direction through my sub, or whether I should accept that CoH has changed too much for my liking and cease to support it.

I like the loyalty Vanguard Pack coming, even though it feels a bit of a bribe to stay on. Putting up with the WST and the changes it engenders in overall community feel are a bit more of a pain, since I am of the opinion that dangling excessive extrinsic rewards steadily move people towards being concerned about the ends, rather than the means or the journey. I am fanatically crazy about the Animal Pack, but I am also concerned that if I buy it, it might feed development of the game into a direction I'm not crazy about, towards a future that I personally have no interest in playing. I don't know for sure yet, of course, until it hits.

My initial hope and belief was that CoH devs could and would design an inclusive endgame, something different from the norm. It could be that I20 might still surprise me. I do feel that the WST is a badly conceived stopgap measure to keep the population subscribed and amused until then, though.

So, yeah, I'm confused and conflicted. It is most likely that I will wait and watch and see until I20 and news of I21 plans arrive to decide one way or another.

(And why post this? Because it's feedback, subjective and personal though it might be. It might be ignored, it might be taken into consideration, that's not in my control. But if it isn't voiced, then no one would have heard in the first place.)

It's all in how you define "end-game", for me. If the "end-game" was more fun things to do that don't also extend progression, I'd love it. If it is more fun things to do with occasional added progression that can be reached in the near future (like when Purples were added), I'm okay with it. If the "end-game" is intended to be a long, long road of endless progression, I'm not looking forward to it. At some point I want my characters to be "done", and then be able to play them without concern for progression.

I like getting to a point where I feel my characters are at a level equal with Batman or Spider-man-- they aren't learning anymore. They have acquired all of their skills or learned how to use their powers, and now they have reached their potential and are fighting/perpetrating crime, or saving/taking over the world. I've reached that point multiple times with my favorite characters: once with HOs, once with IO sets, again when Purples were released, again with the Alpha slot, and now the rare Alphas. Each time I felt relieved and able to play the game in a more relaxed manner once I completed progression on those characters. Each time some form of new power at 50 was released, I felt my work was undone.

Gradual increases in power can be used as a tutorial of sorts in games-- teaching you how to play. In many games, at some point, the increases stop, and you play the rest of the game with your full arsenal of skills/weapons/whatever. But for some people, progression is a game in itself, and MMO developers and players have decided that it should be the focus of their games. That's not for me, and I'd really like to be playing a superhero game that allows me to both create my own characters and play with my friends, where that isn't the case, and new things to do (but not get) are continually added.

Three.

Regarding the market/loot system, everyone can play. There are no barriers to entry. Whatever your play style, if you defeat enemies you'll get junk to sell or equip. You can choose to engage the market itself as casually or intensely as you like, there are no artificial hurdles.

Philosophically I'd prefer everything be marketable and I dislike BOP and BOE for the same reasons I dislike gated content- they carry the taint of orthodoxy. I don't like the proliferation of multifarious currencies (vanguard merits, amerits, tickets, etc) either.
But these are just my personal preferences- for the most part they've been handled well enough that I can mostly ignore them and carry on as I always have with minor adjustments.

I had a massive argument with someone back before they added the market, don't remember who anymore. But they were disappointed that the game was adding something as pedestrian as loot and wished for some kind of outside the box solution. My take was they tried something outside the box (Statesy's famous SSOOCS), it didn't do what they wanted so they fell back on a known quantity.

I get the same impression here. A gated 'end game' is a known quantity with no real risk involved- it's an easy sell, to most players and to the money men.

Of course this time I'm on the other side, wishing they'd taken a less orthodox approach.


I don't think we need an 'end game' in the traditional sense, we just need more stuff to do. But it makes dramatic sense to stick it at the end of the progress tree.

I jousted with Statesy one time over one of his more ridiculous ideas, front-loaded missions.
The one that pushed me over the edge was a Lost mission in Skyway which had a hot door- Unlucky Pete was the boss, I think. This was a long time ago, and a substantial spawn with a few red Headsman Swordsmen (who could and would one-shot you) was a massive challenge to new players who's characters were kitted out with a patchwork of training enhancers in various states of decay.

We eventually beat down the resistance, after multiple team wipes and trips back from the hospital. We'd figured out some tactics, and our blood was up- we stormed down the hallway and were somewhat surprised to find that subsequent spawns were much less challenging- by the time we found Unlucky Pete, he was gray. The whole thing was profoundly unsatisfying and left a bad taste in my mouth.

His argument was it's good to mix things up, and while I agree to some extent it ISN'T good to mix them up in a way that upends archetypal structure and expectations. Or rather, if you DO mix them up in that way it had better be a carefully considered act within a larger framework, not something you do "just because".

Sort of a long winded way of saying it makes sense to put most of your added content at the end of your game, whether or not you format it as some sort of traditional 'end game'.


It's impossible to make a wholly uncontroversial system.
As the saying goes, give people free gold ingots and they'll complain about how heavy they are.

I agree entirely.
But in this case I find myself aligning with my long-ago sparring partner, who wished they'd been able to create an original system instead of just plugging in a proven workhorse like loot/economy.

I'm not antithetical to an 'end game', but I'd like it to be in the iconoclastic spirit of the game. As it is still largely unwritten, perhaps my concerns are unfounded. But I don't like the scent on the breeze.

All true, and I will defer to you from this point on as I am veering perilously close to debating something I know very little about- I have had minimal experience with the Incarnate system so far.

Teaming definitely opens up a lot of design possibilities. Hearkening back to my pen and paper gaming days, you had a lot more flexibility with your encounters when six people made it to the session than when two made it.

I'm just against it being the ONLY way to progress through the 'end game'.

I understand this, and I'm hoping they come up with a compelling alternate route for those who can't/won't/prefer not to team.

Thank you for rendering John F Kennedy's "We do not do these things because they are easy" speech completely pointless. So any damned idea that the developers come up with is sacred and complete because the alternative is just too hard?

Once again, I call shenanigans