Draconian character creation power set availability due to balance issues?

A good argument and counterpoint. I have to concede that.

The same place yours are. In speculative and unconfirmed by official source territory (with the exception of perhaps the numbers you and others have seen, based on what they HAVE officially released. They haven't released any numbers in a while.).

Were both guessing.

You can argue your viewpoint all you like, but we are not going to agree. IMO this game has lost over half it's population, PERIOD. My opinion is based on some opinion pieces using external sources, inside information (unconfirmed) and speculation based on observations of certain things. It has put the game somewhere between 105k to 75k in subs, certainly comfortably in the "half lost" territory.

I am sure, however, that the release coming up will turn that around.

Nothing is stable about losing players, gradual or otherwise. You can hemorrhage them or lose them over time, but while other popular games are gaining subs this one was losing them. General statement, yes. Untrue statement, absolutely NOT.

It is ridiculous, IMO (which means next to nothing naturally) to contend that this game has had a "healthy subscription count" or "healthy population". Has it been dying? I don't think so, but continue this rate of loss over the next few years and maybe it would.

They made the right choice going free to play. It will, IMO, turn things around.

I'd like to add that in order to be fair I would have to say that this game has fared well compared to other games in it's subscriber group, but not in it's class...meaning that this wasn't meant as an obscure title but was actually designed to be a major mainstream online game...at least that is what I contend. And to that purpose it's done OK...not great, not horrible, ok. It is certainly worthy of note that it's still kicking after all this time, which is testament to how addictive the game can be.

One thing I can't argue against...what CoH does right it does better than most if not all games in the industry.

If I didn't care about the game, I wouldn't post...I didn't post last time I left, and unless your contending that it's better just for players to leave instead of sharing what they find wrong with the game...well...I think the dev's would disagree.

I think it's likely they want to know. If they only hear it from me it will likely get ignored as it should be. However, if they hear it from others as well, perhaps they will pay attention. They certainly do not need to respond or give my opinion importance...and that is not why I offer it.

But my opinion is just that, and as such will not be questioned or altered as I present it. People CAN disagree, but they CANT change it unless I allow it.



My final question is this...why is my opinion important to so many people? Do you really believe one little solitary opinion has that much weight? Do you believe the designers of this game are incapable of rejecting any opinion they find irrelevant?

I don't think you guys give them enough credit. And they MOST CERTAINLY do not need your help to determine what they should and should not listen to. They are probably more than capable of doing that themselves.

One other thing you also shouldn't argue against is the idea that regardless of where it stands now or what happens to it in the future, CoH is a successful MMO.

During its development and at it's release the 'big dog' MMO of the time was EQ which had under 600k subscribers. I believe Lineage had more, but it didn't really have the name recognition here in the US so at the time breaking 100k subscribers was a 'big dea'(tm). CoH managed to beat that by a fairly significant margin while only aiming at what was considered to be a relatively niche market. Not only that, but it managed to sustain its population levels for a very long time due to (reportedly) one of the better retention rates in the industry, and that population level has only relatively recently dropped to around/below the 100k subscriber level.

I don't really see how you could look at that and not see it as a successful game.

Actually I can argue against that...and be completely wrong. You could be wrong as well. We don't really know since we know next to nothing about whether the game is profitable or not, what kind of numbers they would have to have or do have for it to be that way, etc.

I ASSUME it did not meet expectations, and therefore is not healthy atm, though that should change soon. Again, that's just my own guess based on what I have read and the market. That doesn't mean I'm right...only that it's my opinion based on what I have seen.

Success, short of some kind of diverse and revealing financial statement that states it in unequivocal terms is speculative and highly subjective.

So in short, I concede you could be right. I just don't think so, and could be wrong about that.

I don't think it's the opinion itself that is important. It is the facts and interpretation of facts that informed the opinion maker. Also, the underlying assumptions that go (somewhat) unstated. In order for opinions to be compared in a meaningful way, they must use the same sets of facts and the same (or similar) assumptions. The debate has been mostly on the validity of the facts informing the opinion. We seem unable to come to an agreement on what is really true.

If we cannot agree on where we came from or where we are now, how can we agree on how to get where we are heading?

Regarding a solitary opinion carrying weight - yes, a single opinion can carry a great deal of weight, especially if unopposed, to an uninformed person. First impressions are very powerful, and a first opinion takes a great amount of evidence to counter once agreed with. Now do I think this opinion carries a great deal of weight to the Devs? No, because it is not a first opinion, and they are assuredly not uninformed. But this is the Player Questions section of the forums, where players come to get answers from other players. So not only are the devs very unlikely even to see this thread (as they very rarely seem to come here), uninformed players are very likely to see it as they come with questions. It is for the benefit of those uninformed players that the majority of the debate has sprung.

It's not getting picked apart and shut down because we're fans.

It's getting picked apart and shut down because you are making factual statements with no evidence to back it up. Do you have access to the exact number of subscribers compared to the peak number? If you don't, you have no ability to state, as a fact, that the game has lost half it's population.

I could just as easily say the country of Luxembourg lost half it's population because I talked to a few people that didn't like living there. But, since I don't know what the population was before or after they left I can't state it as a fact the way you have been doing.

If you can PROVE what you keep asserting, with hard numbers, maybe your opinion will carry a little more weight. But at this point you're basically just saying "I don't like something about the game, so clearly half the players have quit."

Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately.

Not buying it. You chose to post this thread in the Player Questions Got a Question? Get an answer! Players helping players find information related to CoH/CoV. section of the forums because you intentionally wanted player responses to your thread instead of the devs, and you've been dismissive of everything that doesn't agree with you because you know that attitude generates the most responses from players.

I'd love to have a discussion. When we can agree on basic premise, we can have a discussion. That's how it works. When you make blanket assertions based on facts not in evidence, there's no grounds for discussion.

Speaking for the devs is one thing. You won't speak for me. Apparently your not aware that I'm fully capable of doing that myself.

I've been accused of many ridiculous things in this thread based on the hope that I would respond in some silly exchange. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in my corner.

Let's see if I can make yet one more attempt to clarify this. I realize it's possible I haven't been clear, so what the heck, I'll give it another shot...



...There is no need to respond to anything that is baseless, exaggerated, dishonest, attempting to create conflict or hypocritical. Nor is it necessary to justify any and all of my actions or intentions to any member of this board. Those that wish to engage in this type of baiting and confrontational behavior possess opinions that mean next to nothing to me.

My responses to those types of posts stand in direct evidence of that fact.



The funny thing is I am absolutely sure the folks I am speaking about know EXACTLY who they are and will continue to attempt the same to no avail. It is my sincere hope that they instead choose to place me on ignore so the discussion can perhaps continue. They have to catch on eventually.

I really hope that was clear enough.




That said, I do appreciate those folks that have actually had a desire to discuss the issue, explain the problems, reasons and pratfalls of an open system, and I have another tidbit to add to my list against the very thing I was suggesting...

...Champions had an open system and we all can see the evidence of the problems that creates. After some research I have seen some complaints to that end. Certainly something to think about.

increased it's population by 100fold...



OK, I don't really think that, but was just trying to point out how silly it is to say, "I have an opinion on a matter that isn't an opinion type of question. It's either factually right, or wrong, but I ignore that, and have an opinion, and will cling to my belief regardless of what you say or what facts I become aware of. PERIOD"

You could have stated that you don't believe the trustworthiness of their quoted sources. Or you think they are lying and making numbers up and I could have bought that. But to say, "I have an opinion on a matter that is factual, not a preference," and boldfacedly stating that nothing, even proof of you being wrong, will change your belief is a tad extreme. I hope you're just being dramatic, but if you're sincere, which I get the impression you may be, than any attempt to have a discussion with you is an utter waste of time...


EDIT: For clarity and truthful disclosure, your original quote which I hijacked for my point appears below..

Why would I be a hypocrite and question their opinions or sources? Instead I simply tell them I do not agree, I do not have to list the reasons why since that is an attempt to disparage and invalidate their opinions...and there is no need to do that.

I also won't explain why your comment that I don't change my mind is wrong. You can discover that for yourself.

Sooo...basically you're saying that when presented with evidence contrary to your opinion, you don't need to argue against it to prove your point, you just need to say that you don't agree, and that makes you right again?

We are presenting you with facts. You are choosing to ignore them (in some places, you actually acknowledge the facts, and then pretend like they don't matter). Then, you say that we are arguing on baseless claims. You don't see how that is hypocritical.

This is a discussion. What happens here is that you state your facts, we state ours, and we try to figure out who is right. When you present no facts, and we do, then there is no discussion. Don't pretend like WE'RE at fault for why the discussion has veered.

More proof he has no interest in discussion.

There were, on the old boards, dev comments to the effect that the game was projected for and proffitable at 100k subs. So take that for what you will. My memory might be slightly off, but not about the fact that CoH was generally considered a smashing success at release based on developer comments at the time.

Out of curiosity though, could you plainly explain why you think CoH was a dissapointment thatfailed to meed the dev and publisher expectations? And why it would still be around if it didn't measure up at least somewht? That it didn't break 200k subs doesn't really cut it, and that its subs are currently low doesn't mean it wasn't a success at one point.

There isn't a single thing I can find right about this post. The problem, however, if I correct you I really will be a hypocrite.

So instead I will simply say fair enough. After all, you either do not understand my very clear comments or you refuse to understand, in either case discussion along this line with you will be fruitless.

That's interesting. If that is the case than I will certainly retract my opinion in that respect.

There were two comments 3 years ago or so that I used to gauge my opinion (I couldn't verify either at the time, so I chalked it up to feasible but not confirmed, until I learned the current population level. That gave more credence that this was inside information.)

The first was a memo tidbit that claimed the desired target was the same as SWG once had...300k subs. The second was a comment that subs had dropped to
137k and were still dropping, and they were disappointed that subs were going in the opposite direction but chalked it up to market competition.

When the last sub report was released it was very close to the proper claimed subs in the released info, so it gave it credence. I haven't seen any other info since (before you posted that they publically commented they were profitable at 100k) that talked about profitability levels.

If that is the case I'm happy to hear that, but I would find the choice to go free to play an odd one. Unless, of course, they are actually trying to INCREASE sub targets at the moment, which is certainly possible.

It is certainly food for thought.

Fair enough.

Well, my thought on Freedom has generally been that it's a preemptive attempt to maintain profitability in the face of steadily declining subs. Why wait until you're in dire straights to try and fix something when you can see it's going to be coming up in a year or three (or two ... or whatever). If it's worked for other games as a last-ditch effort why can't it work for us when it's not quite one.

About the 300k thing. I could actually see that as an expectation for CoV. CoH was a success and managed to gather about 150k folks and since the idea of CoV was that it was going to be a whole separate game in parallel with CoH so pulling it its own separate set of subscribers would make sense. It would also explain the pre-CoV launch ideas that every issue would basically be a double issue with both CoH and CoV content. Also why instead of doing that Cryptic dropped the team down to 14 people. Development was trucking along until then, and you really don't release quite major expansions on the level of CoV for failures.

That is entirely speculation, but even if it's completely true CoV's potential failure wouldn't have negated CoH's success. Plus NCSoft's continued support of the game tends to imply that they see the game as a success and would like to keep it that way. I mean, we've all seen what they do with games they don't think are successful.

That would make sense. Sort of a hedge against bad times, make sure to keep the game at a profit by expanding it's playerbase with dollars ready to spend on the market.

Many games have already demonstrated, from what I have seen and heard, that a FTP system with microtrans can be very profitable.

I can also see the point with the second and even third expansions. Perhaps that is where the disappointment comes from. Maybe they expected to gain, not lose subs after two expansions.