This is why I'm not PvPing.

I'd just like to point out that this is not what I meant by "balance", either. It was not my intention to imply that all player characters should have exactly equal abilities. What I meant was that every player character should have an equal opportunity to win! That still depends on luck and skill, but it really should not depend on what choice of AT you made when you first created your character.

I hope I'm explaining that difference well enough. Because Masque's response to my post confused me just as much. :P

It does explain it to me, I think.

I would say, though, that in a game like this, I probably agree with Masque (I think >.>) to the extent that I don't think that's reasonably achievable for two arbitrary characters. If all the ATs are equally proficient against one another in battle (assuming comparable player skill), in practice that's probably going to mean there's minimal differences in what those characters actually do.

Now, I do believe it's possible to have PvP where multiple character types that have carefully tuned capabilities that could be fairly even in head-to-head play, but the more distinct character types you try to have, the less reasonable that becomes for all of them. When you consider that, for CoH, "character type" means AT not just AT, but also primary/secondary(/epic) combinations, I think we have too many combinations for them all to be distinct and all to also be equally likely to win against all the others, head-to-head. Some of them are going to need to be better at support, or indirect fighting, or something like that, and therefore not as good in a one-on-one match-up.

I get what you're saying, and on paper, things can look fair. A lot of your suppositions seem to be, at least from my viewpoint, in a sterile environment without the million different variables that have tremendous influence over individual experience.

My anecdotal observations and subsequent opinion is grounded in taking the player and external influences intro account.

This is why I'm not a designer, but rather the guy who reads the design or listens to the game plan and immediately thinks of the million ways that the player will break it . I'm nowhere near creative enough to actually come up with a design.

I'm not even touching PVE balance .

You're never supposed to try to balance individual experience. If you're doing the same job as someone else, and I pay you both the exact same amount of money, that's fair. If I pay you half the amount for the exact same work, I can try to appeal to you that you're actually enjoying the money more than the other guy so its still fair, but I don't think you'd buy that argument. Particularly because I've just ensured you can't afford it.

Balance is not about all the different ways players can produce variable experiences. Its about everyone getting the same opportunity to do so within certain limits.

I think what you think is impossible I don't even think is desirable. What I believe to be possible is to create a framework where a wide range of player options provide a similar opportunity for success, and the rest is up to the player. The framework can also ensure that the best player in the world beats the worst one 95% of the time, not 100% of the time.

And it can ensure that not even infinite skill and intelligence can generate an insurmountable advantage. You do that by making it mathematically impossible to generate any high benefit without a compensating disadvantage. If you give the players spackle and duct tape, a smart enough player can make a spackle and duct tape cannon. But if you give the player one of these:



They can only move the hole around: they can't make it go away no matter how clever they are.


Design is not easy, made doubly so by the fact that design as a science is rarely taught. How to design X is taught, but the science of design itself isn't. Most people probably don't even think design is an intrinsic skill outside of specific context.

Hypothetically speaking, an interesting experiment would be for me to design something and then see if you could find a way for players to break it, to see whether it was possible to make mechanics that were at least extremely difficult to exploit. It would be interesting to me to see what the results of such an experiment would be.

*Buys another puzzle, takes it apart, paints '16' over '15', inserts it into Arcana's puzzle*

*hands Bionic a Rubix Cube with all the stickers replaced by Maijong tile faces, randomly distributed*

You only win if you can execute that using only spackle and duct tape.

I once "solved" a Rubix Cube by carefully removing the cover of one of the faces on a center square to reveal a screw that was holding the whole cube together. I pulled it out using a screwdriver and disassembled the cube. Then I re-assembled the cube in its solved state and tightened the screw back in place.

True, and no matter what the devs do to the game, I can always hack the servers and insert my own code. Somehow, however, I suspect NCSoft will not be giving me a commendation for original thinking if I were to do that.

Thanks. I'm actually glad you took the time to look at the posts and express yourself in a somewhat respectful way (for the most part).

lol, know what, I spent like 2 hours typing up a point by point response to you, but in all honesty I was over this discussion with you like a day ago.

I will PM you my comments to your post, it seems the most mature thing to do.

My response wasn't to "Did people leave the game due to i13." it was to "the ALL left because of i13".

Did I lose friends post i13. Yes, specifically, Putz left, Ed left, VV left, W left, r0x left (he only comes back now for badges). The fact that players left due to i13 is not something that is false. What is false is that EVERYONE left because of i13, or that it was i13 alone that killed PvP or left it in the sad state that is it currently.

So what else (in my opinion) caused pvp to wither?

1)Server transfers- Some PvPers moved to freedom, some wanted to say on their home server. Freedom became the mecca of PvP population, while zones in other servers became tumbleweeds and farmers. This certainly did not help to sustain the PvP population, new players who might have tried PvP and ventured into a pvp zone found no one there to pvp with. New players who had questions about PvP found no players on their *home* server to ask questions. I can't tell you how often I asked Putz, Ed, Peril, Doc Boy, r0x, and others and questions about pvp before I even made my first PvP toon. Essentially, the only breeding ground for PvP was Freedom and any PvPers left behind in the max exodus to Freedom had to find new activities to keep them entertained outside of PvP.

2)Lack of support- We have had some great community reps when it comes to promoting or participating in PvP. When Z was participating in Boot Camp on victory he talked about it on almost every single one of his "coffee talks", he got a lvl 5 pvp event posted on the CoH Facebook page, he shows up on servers and broadcasts that he is in a zone and you will see people flock there to kill him as he jumps around in a rularu or golden roller costume. Avatea was great with getting swag for pvp event. Ocho was one of the few community reps who was willing to face the trolling by posting in /ac or the pvp forums, also Ex she was a strong supporter of PvP. However, between these and with so many of these supporters leaving we had community reps who really didn't give PvP any support or who PvPEC had to beg for swag, only to be told no. That also contributed to the lack of people trying PvP. I don't only blame the community reps but also PvPEC (which I am also at fault for) for not running more events to try to keep people interested in at least TRYING pvp.

3) Attrition- I said it in the original post and I still think its true. The game's population has decreased as a whole. The PvP "population" of this game has always been a small fraction of the total. As the total population decreased the group that PvPed also decreased, to the point were there isn't enough of us left to really run any high scale ladders, tournys or any team based PvP. Yes some of this attrition was due to i13 (perhaps even a large portion) but some people grew up got jobs, went to college, joined the military () or for some other reason stopped playing the game. It wasn't ALL due to i13.

Am I splitting hairs- perhaps. If so I accept that, but I just think its kind of crap to say i13 killed pvp because with that attitude there is no coming back from it, that gives no one any incentive to try pvp. I ran 2 seasons of Boot Camp and in both I was able to spark interest in PvP in players who had never tried PvP ever. They all had heard the PvP was horrible and broken since i13 but they were willing to try it and when some of them found that they actually enjoyed it and were willing to join the 2nd season of boot camp as mentors for other new players. Did it really change the face of pvp population, no, but if we had gotten away form the mantra that i13 killed pvp by making it unplayable then perhaps we would have had more players join or try pvp and the population wouldn't be the shadow of its former self.

So that is why I responded to "I13 drove them all away" the way that I did. Its just my opinon but as someone who has consistantly tried to grow and support new player trying pvp it really goes against everything that I have attempted to do for the last 2 years.

I actually wrote up a post this morning about this but as I drove in I realized I totally missed the point that I wanted to make so I deleted it and am making this one.


Again everything Im stating is my opinion and is biased by my personal feelings and beliefs:

HD/TS/DR =/= I13

Yes they are parts of i13, and there is a reason I want to try to keep them as just a part rather than saying they are synonymous.

If we say that everything that everything that is wrong with PvP is from i13. (In my opinion) we are fostering the belief in the general population that there is no coming back unless we repeal all of the changes together.

That to me is much different than saying that we want travel supression removed, or heal decay or diminishing returns or some combination of the them. When we say that we point out the subsets of i13 that really reduce the enjoyment of PvP for the majority of the players.

I know, it sounds the same but in my mind its not. We can turn off these aspects of the PvP mechanics that we don't enjoy in the arena so if we want to introduce players to PvP they can see and compare the two versions of the PvP game and make a decision as to if they enjoy it or not.

We can show these new players why TS isn't fun, we can show the devs/community reps why TS isn't fun.

Its the same with HD and DR.

The biggest issue that I have with lumping them all together and calling it i13 is that- asking for a fix for all three of those would be a huge undertaking.

We both know that you can't adjust HD without looking at inherent resists.

The same goes with looking at DR without looking at mez changes and damage modifers (or whatever the term for that is).

I think that by people going around saying i13, i13, i13 it doesn't lend itself to fixing the issue or pointing out what parts of i13 we really strongly want changed. It just starts a dogma that PvP isn't worth trying.

Again all my opinon jaded by the fact that these are the mentalities and attitudes that I have tried to deal with and overcome in getting people to try PvP.

That is unforunately the issue with zone pvp. A few small population of players can cast a huge shadow over an entire group.

I used to zone pvp almost everyday. The one thing I noticed was the "griefers" were usually a few small group of players, and the worst trash talkers by far were actually ostracized by both sides. There was a flying cold/psi dom on Victory that was the classic example of this. The guy would trash talk non-stop. He rarely got a kill, but he would broadcast every kill he saw mocking the hero. He was generally disliked by both sides and no one would team with him or come to his rescue if he was under attack. It wasn't until I actually talked to the guy that I found out a few things. First that it was actually his way of.. idk... I guess RPing as a villain?

The point is, if you were in zone when he was, you would assume that all villains were trash talking jerks, when to be honest, most of the villains in zone were rolling their eyes at his broadcasts as much as the heroes.

Zone pvp is a poor example for what PvP can be. I have rarely seen (but I have) after a team match players mocking each other or being <pancakes>. For the most part its GG or nice fight.

If you drive across state, you might take a few local roads, a long stretch on an interstate (let's call it I-500), a long stretch on a highway (let's call it "Route 40") and then some more local roads.

If someone at your destination asks "how did you get down here?", it would usually be fairly acceptable for you to respond with something like "I took I-500 to 40, and then on over". Yes, you would be omitting important details, and if someone else wanted to take the same route, that would not be enough information for them without more research. But it gets the idea across.

The other thread about why people don't PvP now is asking something that pre-I13 players can answer similarly. "How did I get here?" And like answering a question about directions, they're giving the major thoroughfares they followed, not every little twist and turn.

Immediately after I13 there was huge turmoil, and a bunch of rage quitting. Various aspects of play seemed to go into decline in terms of participating players, though at different rates - zone play dropped off at a different rate than organized ladder/league stuff.

Occam's razor seems to apply. I13 happened in between two visibly different states, so it seems perfectly reasonable to assign aspects of I13 a causal relationship to the state change.

You stated clearly that it's your opinion, but I think you're reading too much into what people mean when they say "I13 is why I don't play". Yes, for some of us, it really does specifically mean we're not going to play so long as there is DR/TS/HD in PvP. But for at least some people it clearly means "Because of what's happened to the community after the changes in I13". And if the community got bigger and more active, some of those people would likely play again/more.

But if too many people don't like the mechanics of post-I13 PvP (as in they don't find them fun to tool around in, not whether they find their math pleasing), you've got a serious uphill battle, because you need critical mass to create a community, and having too many people dislike the mechanics fights you creating that critical mass.

So is "I13"* the absolutely only thing that changed? No. Did everyone leave after/because of it? Obviously, no. Did it cause such an upheaval that it seriously damaged the previously existing community? I am of the opinion that it did.

* I have to say, I don't see any value in distinguishing between I13('s PvP changes) and DR/TS/HD in discussion. Yeah, they weren't the only things in I13, but calling it "I13" is a heck of a lot easier to say and type.

The point is removing TS would go along way in helping to make PvP fun again.

TS is not i13. Saying only by reverting to pre-i13 would PvP be fun again is not the same as saying I really dislike TS.


That is why it is important and honest to say what part of I13 you dislike or want changed. Rather than lumping everything into one big steaming pile.

Humor alert:

I really don't see you having an issue with typing/saying things ad naseum.

(smiley face include to indicate joke).

Poker.

Who, me?

TS isn't I13. But TS/HD/DR + mez changes + DPA normalization covers an awful lot of the I13 changes.

I'm open to the idea that you could rank the changes in I13 and that TS might be the top one that people dislike. But I do think a lot of people dislike all of them, and that's why they refer to them as a single, monolithic thing.

There was also inherent resists, changes to shields, and minor stuff as well but yes the big three are:

HD/TS/DR- with the two biggest CFs being HD and TS.

The reason I would suggest we keep them apart is that I think its a super easy fix to turn off TS.

Hell, I have personally seen Z do it in warburg.

That would go a long way in making PvP 'fun', since one of the biggest pros about CoX PvP has always been the speed at which it was played.

If we lump it all together and the common mantra that everyone learns is:

I13 I13 I13 I13

And by some miracle we get TS turned off, you will still have people thinking- well thats nice BUT it was i13 that broke PvP only fixing this one small thing doesnt cut it, and they wouldn't even try PvP.

Maybe. I kinda doubt many would be like that, but I'm sure a few would. And some would still actually dislike some of the remaining I13 changes. And of course there's all the other stuff people have been posting in the other thread, but I gather that's not your focus here.

HD really you can get around that with incandesence.

DR- thats a hard fix, without looking at mez and inherent resists.

The damage thing- You called it DPA- I will go with that term- That honestly is pretty minor. I think a quick explanation for people entering zone would go a long way with that.

Honestly, ask around I think TS is the #1 hated thing that changed post i13.

As far as the attitudes or griefing nature (was that what you ment by the other thread?) that could be handled with more strict moderation, or removal of broadcast from PvP zones.

Or was there something else in the other thread? I really don't read everything posted, I barely have enough time to read this thread to be honest.
(edit)
Guess I can go read it now....