CoH: a game for Introverts, too

In fairness, he could also be calling for the devs to create content in the same proportion that they always have, i.e. 90% soloable, but specifically requesting that they continue to create content instead of stopping. You know, like they were going to.

You've said it yourself, this game has at least 90% of its content that fits the solo path. Is CoH an MMO or not?

And yet our devs have now placed on the beta server a way for the soloist to specifically get the same gear and achieve the same levels of power as their raiding counterparts, yet you keep calling this game an MMO.

Yes, there is still some content that is blocked from the soloist, example, I can't run 16 clients on my system nor would I pay to have all 16 in VIP status so that I could start an I-trial without other humans to pad, but there is nothing in THIS game progress-wise that is blocked to the soloist. Even with badges, the ones I can't get while 100% solo don't include buff powers.

So either CoH isn't an MMO by the standards of that article nor yourself, or you, as most of us accept, are dead wrong.

As I've said repeatedly, it is a solo-friendly MMORPG. Stop being so dense.

I said that to force the hand to present the entire quote in its context. Having done that for the comment listed in full, it is clear that it was taken almost completely out of context to support the current absurd assertion being made about the devs feelings and desires for solo/small team play in the game.

The only problem is some of the solo rewards are not at a pace that the majority of the players that do that content solo feel is fair. Anything beyond that is not the real issue.

Sorry Tony. But you're incorrect. It happens to us all at some point. This just happens to be your turn.

Unless you can find something definitive out there besides your opinion that "massively multiplayer = you should be teaming", you're going to continue to be wrong.

So, your argument is because a bunch of non-MMO content wasn't called an MMO that means "MMO = you should be teaming"?

Uh. No.

Why don't we just quote the pertinent text?

Funny, it doesn't say ""A multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds of player, ideally in teams, simultaneously."

But let's continue.


*Emphasis mine*


Nowhere in there does it say that teaming is required, expected, or even normative.


Or howabout this?

Nobody sane is asking to solo iTrials. What's being asked is for a viable solo/small team venue so that players who can't raid (for any reason) still have a method of improving themselves without being penalized because iTrials are so profligate with their rewards.

Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.

Then you admit MM doesn't mean forced teaming. Good, we agree. Now you can stop saying it does and stop bringing up that idiotic belief in these conversations.

Um... No, I'm not.

An MMORPG is a subset of the MMOG genre. As such, traits of MMOGs are generally traits of MMORPGs. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. I was talking about MMOGs in a general sense, but everything I said applies to MMORPGs as well.

Specifically, I chose these words very carefully:

"Interacting" can mean a variety of things. It most certainly can mean PvP, as your "free-for-all deathmatch" example. In MMORPGs, "interacting" typically means teaming up, possibly with PvP elements (sometimes quite extensive) as well.

But the key element, the thing that separates a MMOG (thus MMORPGs) from non-MMOGs is that it involves not just people playing in a shared environment, but people playing with each other, be it cooperatively or competitively.

Of course, having said that, I realize that someone is going to misinterpret it yet again to imply that it means people must play together all the time, but that's not true. It doesn't mean you can't solo or even that you have to be interacting a majority of the time. It simply means interaction with other players is a core feature and a significant part of why most people play.

City of Heroes fits this description to a tee, with the side note that it doesn't have the hard requirements of interaction as much as some other games in the genre do, thus making it solo-friendly. But make no mistake, it is an MMORPG, and thus interaction with other players is a core feature, one that the developers and marketers can and do (and should) be encouraging.

I'm sorry, but the emphasis on this is wholly yours. The caveat for people interacting doesn't necessarily include actual teaming in interaction.

Use of the auction house is interaction with other players (buying and selling).

Moreover, the term "interaction" has no caveats for depth of said interaction.

Technically two players running by one another is interaction. At the most cursory level yes. But it's still interaction.

The problem is, you are not arguing that "interaction" is required. You're arguing that "teaming" is required. Save in a couple specific instances in the game, teaming is NOT required.

First off, it's not a "core feature". It's simply a byproduct of the nature of the game. If you wish to look at it as a feature, be my guest.

As to why "most people play", it's an unverifiable quantitative assertion that you're unqualified to make.

Redefine it all you like. It doesn't change the reality of the situation.
And the reality of the situation in MMOGs is that interaction is available if desired, but not required.

And I'm not arguing that attempts to reward interactive/social behavior (teaming) shouldn't be more renumerative that solo play. I'm simply saying that solo play shouldn't be purposefully crippled just to make team play more rewarding.

Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.

It means that high-level interaction is a key element of the game. The exact details of how that is implemented is highly dependent on the game. In City of Heroes, it is implemented via content and various rewards that are either gated outright to teams or significantly more easy to obtain on teams.

You and some others seem to be under the false impression that MM means that it is a game in which multiple people are merely playing in a shared environment; that there is no requirement that they actually be interacting with each other at all.

THAT is an idiotic belief. NO MMOG that I know of in the history of gaming has ever fit that meaningless description. I defy you to find one--just one single solitary instance--non-parody ad in which a game in which players do not interact with each other pitches itself as a MMOG.

There are none.

So yes, let's please stop with the idiotic beliefs. Maybe someday, City of Heroes will be rewritten to be a pure PvP game with no co-op play, and thus it could still be an MMOG without teaming up being a key aspect of the game. I highly doubt it.

But until then, stop claiming that teaming isn't an essential part of the game. Stop pretending like the devs have no interest in encouraging--even "forcing"--people to team up, even though they've repeatedly developed content and rewards that cannot be obtained by any other means (inasmuch as you're "forced" to obtain said rewards).

For an introverted person, it's an on/off switch. Most of the time, these people WILL NOT speak up just because they don't feel comfortable doing it, they don't want the hassles, they're not used to it and a whole bag of reasons. So when they DO, it's a big deal, it's usually over-thought, it's usually very serious and it's usually very involved.

I know this for a fact because, believe it or not, I started off as a shy, awkward, uncommunicative person way back before I even discovered the Internet, but have since learned finer control over that on/off switch. But I can say one thing for certain - an introvert forced to commit to a confrontation is going to be a much fiercer opponent than most extroverts, just because it FEELS like a battle of life and death, even though it's not.

That it's "funny" how introverts are the loudest is little more than unfair cynicism. You only notice them when they're loud because when they're loud, they're VERY loud. But what you don't notice is the introverts the majority of the rest of the time.

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.

Actually that's precisely the point.

You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension here.

Nobody's saying that player interaction isn't available as a basic function of how the game operates.

Merely that it is not, in any way forced upon you at more than a cursory level (i.e. see "The two guys crossing paths and seeing one another"). Beyond that, only a limited subset of team-specific content in the game REQUIRES interaction.

If I want to solo 1-50 and vendor everything I get in drops, I can do so.
Is it the social thing to do?
Nah. But the option is there and not forced upon me.
YOUR definition of the game is essentially "teaming = mandatory". This is not the case.

Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.

You're making a needlessly absolute statement. The only thing that's required for the "idiotic belief" to be true is a game in which players are never FORCED to interact with each other unless they choose to do so. There is no requirement that players are PREVENTED from interacting with each other. No game designer with more than half a brain will work to prevent people from interacting in a game which supports it, that much is obvious and thus an empty statement. The question is whether a game designer should force his players to either interact with each other or quit the game, or whether that game designer should provide options both for those who do and those who don't want to interact with others.

There's another absolute in there, as well - it asserts that people can be split in two groups - those who want to interact and those who don't. The truth of the matter is that this division is meaningless. All people want to interact sometimes and don't want to interact at other times. The it's not a binary difference, but rather a difference of degrees. What this also means is that by providing an option for playing the game without interacting with other people gives even those who want to interact often an optional path of progression for those times when even they don't want to interact at that precise point in time.

It's easy to assert than an MMORPG will invariably have activities in it which require interaction with other people, and which cannot be done alone. Obviously. It should be just as easy an assertion that an MMORPG will invariably have activities that DON'T require interaction and can be done alone of that's how the player is inclined to approach them. That, essentially, is what Dark Astoria should represent. I'm still not convinced it actually will in real practice, but that doesn't change what it SHOULD represent, nevertheless.

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.

Okay, genius. In your reality, I'd like to see you develop an MMOG in which no interaction is required. I even have a name to suggest for it: "Boring Town: I Can't Believe I Wasted My Money Developing This Crap Edition".

Seriously, it's not rocket science. A game in which interaction with other players isn't a key element of the game is not an MMOG. Period. End of story. (And you know I'm not talking about buying and selling stuff on the market.) The longer you keep insisting that it is, the deeper you dig your hole, and the sillier you sound.

You're so dug in now that I understand you not wanting to give an inch. But if you could just step back for a minute and read what you've been saying, I really hope that you'd realize just how foolish it sounds. That 1) there could be MMOGs out there where everyone blithely ignores everyone else and have full access to all the content, and that's a feasible plan, and 2) that City of Heroes should be such a game. It's ludicrous. Maybe if you just calm down a little bit, take a break, talk to some buddies about your weird theories, you'll realize just how wrong you are.

...At least, I hope.

From my point of view, it's the exact kind of game I'd want to pay to play.

Tony, from the tone of your posts and the downward spiral of your attitude, I'd say you're losing your objectivity. Insulting people's intelligence will not get your point across, and is in fact much more likely to make people reject your arguments out of hand.

Really, precisely that kind of situation is why people keep requesting an MMO with a non-required social aspect - because the "social game" is not always fun, and it's nice to have something to do with the game when socialising isn't working.

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.

So before I reply to this, I want to know up front: If I can give you one example of a performance level item that is impossible to obtain without being on a team at some point, will you drop this once and for all? I won't even demand an apology, just showing everyone else that you're wrong will be enough.

All I need is one, right? Because your claim of ZERO was rather emphatic.

I'm not defending the others, make no mistake, but this is not the first time Tony has danced that dance, and it's not the first time it has turned out like this. It's never the same people doing this, but that's what always ends up happening.

To my eyes, this is simply evidence that the assertion stating that every MMO has to force people to interact or quit is just not an opinion everyone shares. The real irony here is that no-one is asking to be the kind of anything. All people want is an option. That's what people have been asking for since I18. Lo and behold, Dark Astoria is... Or is supposed to be, anyway... An option.

Generally, it's pointless to argue in absolutes on a subject that contains no absolute truths.

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.

...And there are a lot of those types of games on the market. This isn't one of them.

If you like the solo aspects of this game, then great! You seem like a nice guy, and I'm glad you're here. But if you're expecting City of Heroes to ever be a game where you can experience 100% of everything by literally never teaming up with anyone, it's just not going to happen.

I'm not being mean, and I'm not saying, "Leave!" Au contraire, I want you to stay. I'm merely saying that if the parts of the game you do find enjoyable outweigh the parts that you don't, then I really don't see the need to keep harping on something (making 100% of the content available to solo-only players) that will never, ever happen.

Edit: As fun as beating my head against this brick wall is, I really have more productive things I need to be doing. Barring Bill agreeing to stop trolling if I post something that is gated to having to team up at least once, this will probably be my last post on the matter for a while. For anyone else munching on popcorn following this thread, I'll just leave you with this.

You play the game. You know what it's like. What do you think is more likely? That the devs strive to make a solo-friendly experience but really want to encourage people to team up, even by gating content and rewards sometimes? Or that they're totally okay with everyone just being islands unto themselves, never having to speak or interact with each other? That at some magical point in the future, the devs will suddenly realize that this really should have been a single-player game all along, maybe with some teaming mechanics thrown in just to satisfy those weirdos who like socializing?

You don't have to answer, but I know you're out there. I've met a lot of you, I've talked to a bunch of you in person, and I've teamed up with countless of you. Regardless of the senseless back-and-forth in this thread, I'm pretty sure I have a pretty good finger on the pulse of both the devs and the player base. Of course, you're free to believe anything you want, but all I ask is that you really think about what makes the most sense.

Trust me, a name that draws attention draws ire more often than it draws support once the battle lines have been drawn

I generally find this kind of extreme pedantry (and this is coming from a sworn pedant, mind you) to really be missing the point. Paragon Studios do have a history of pigheaded insistence on whatever idea they're pushing through, yes, but more than that, they have a much larger history of communication with the player base and, as Matt Miller once said, of giving the players what they want. City of Heroes is very much unlike any other MMO because it is, in large part, designed by the players for the players. Yes, that does mean we get a lot of bad with the good just because people's desires don't always make for a good game, but at the end of the day, much of what goes into the game is the stuff we ask for.

We insisted that the raids as the only form of progress into the Incarnate system was limiting. We asked for options. We're getting options. Yes, there's an argument to be made as to just how viable those options are, but they exist now. They can be tweaked, they can be pushed and pulled, they can be extended. So long as they exist.

Personally, I just feel that player choice trumps Skinner box design. Giving players enough options that at least one will feel like "their own" is, to my eyes at least, the smart way to design.

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'm afraid its not in this case. The statement under challenge is Bill's statement:

The problem is the underlined part. The question is not whether that statement is true or fase, but rather: do the devs agree, or do the devs disagree as GG asserts. And I believe both quotes state positively that the devs disagree, that they do not believe City of Heroes is just a game that happens to have the same people in the same environment. The devs believe there is specific value to teaming, and specifically to rewarding teaming separately and explicitly. It means, as Black Scorpion said, that sometimes the devs are going to be explicitly cogniscent they are developing a multiplayer game, and provide special encouragement - in the form of in-game rewards in particular - to teamed only tasks.

Black Scorpion does say they acknowledge that there should be some options for solo players, but by acknowledging that some of their development will explicitly go into emphasizing teamed tasks they are admitting that, in effect, being able to solo everything is not an absolute rule for the devs.

Ghost Falcon's post also explicitly reveals the devs position that they do not believe City of Heroes is a game that just happens to include multiple players in a shared environment. Ghost Falcon also explicitly states that the devs think carefully about how the content they add to the game affects and encourages teaming. That doesn't mean teaming itself is preeminent, but it does mean its also not marginalized. Its very obvious that teaming isn't considered the faulty degenerate case of the rest of the game. Its considered a legitimate thing by the devs to encourage teaming, to reward teaming, to allow teamed events to take initial priority in certain rewards, to introduce certain elements of the game in teaming settings first, and to make some things exclusive to teaming. Not all things, or even most things, or even many things necessarily, but some things, and deliberately so.

In that sense, the devs do disagree with the statement that an MMO is just a shared environment. They believe teaming is a special activity in MMOs that deserves special attention. They do not say they believe forced teaming is a good idea across the entire game, but the difference between "forced" and "encouraged" is often a matter of perspective.


I don't know why this is true, but the devs position has been pretty obvious and yet constantly debated. Their position has always consistently been: Most things should be accessible by solo players, but not everything needs to be. Pretty simple, and pretty straight forward. And yet people still think that the devs either "know" that MMOs are all about teaming, or they think the devs have finally realized the truth that everything should be soloable on reasonable solo terms. Neither are true, and that's not going to change any time soon.

Sure. And by team you will have to mean other humans and ignore the fact that I can fire up 8 accounts on my rig now.