Apparently it was tested and had *issues* at some point. *shrug*
I don't really get it for *this* game, to be honest. I think the biggest thing is that you lose a few things as you transfer servers (prestige totals, because some people actually seem to care about those, and server friends lists come to mind,) and there's a little bit of hassle as you have to re-join your supergroup when you transfer back.
There is the cost for transfer, as well. Plus some people just want to play "one" character and don't like the thought of rolling a fresh one and re-leveling/re-enhancing it (which, again, isnt' something *I* get - you enjoyed it the first time, supposedly - but it is an issue for some folks, so there it is.)
Because it increases the pool of potential teammates while allowing you to stay on a server you prefer. Some people like being on sparsely populated servers but there are times they can't find a team. Why should they switch to a server they don't want to be on just to team up for one play session?
WoW for instance has cross server teaming. If you for a team and just head to a dungeon then you are all obviously on the same server. But any time you enter a random dungeon queue it's cross server.
Don't count your weasels before they pop dink!
My thought was that cross-server teaming would apply to all the trials and task forces that you currently queue up for. So that folks in less populated servers could run trials more easily. Basically you would enter the queue and the queue would pull from all servers. But who knows.
Quote:
Nope, okay, see, right there is my disconnect.|
Originally Posted by Mandu
Some people like being on sparsely populated servers but there are times they can't find a team. Why should they switch to a server they don't want to be on just to team up for one play session?
|
Let's say I'm on Nebula, the "nobody's here" server. (See? You've never even heard of it, that's how few people are on Nebula!) I want to team. I click "Transfer to Other Server", make my choice, and within moments, bam. Teams. Invites. Costume Contests. More players than I can shake an Endurance bar at.
I have my bit of fun, and when I'm done, if I want, I click, "Go Home", and bam, I'm back to Nebula and solo-style play.
That seems like a lot less coding for the Devs than "cross server teaming", but accomplishes about 95%+ of the same things in my mind.
It does vastly reduce the "server transfer token" use, but wouldn't cross-server teaming mostly do that anyway?
Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I honestly feel like I'm some sort of blind fool, who can't see how obviously awesome cross-server teaming is, because I can't think it's much more than "free unlimited server transfers".
Memphis_Bill - Valid points, I suppose. But again, those can be addressed by making those properties "sticky" when you click "transfer to other server" button.
I don't think the developers are envisioning a person popping over to Freedom for a costume contest and then popping back to the "Nebula" server. I honestly think it will only apply to events like incarnate trials and the new sewer trial and such. It will simply pull participants from across all servers to fill out a particular trial team.
I would imagine it's quite a bit simpler to temporarily transfer your character to an instance server (such as for an iTrial or DFB) while on that particular team or league, than it would be to temporarily transfer your character to another server entirely. After all, this is already being done for the instance, it's simply only starting the transfer, at this point, from a single server. Of course, who knows, maybe the devs intend for exactly what you have envisioned in your version of 'cross-server' teaming?
Save Paragon one more time! http://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index....ic,4877.0.html
Petition to end shutting down CoH:
http://www.change.org/petitions/ncso...city-of-heroes
To me, it's this:
- I have characters in personal and social villain/super groups. This is a reason to stay on one server.
- I also like the name I have on my servers. The names are NOT available elsewhere.
But.....
- Despite how much I like my home server, it's quiet and mostly a late-night server. If I'm on at an odd time and wish to play content that is gated behind a larger group, this content is not accessible.
- Also, I have friends on several different servers. I can team with them if I transfer characters, but those transfers are limited.
- Also, I have a main character I play most of the time, and several others that I play regularly. I know some like playing tons of alts, (me too!) but it's not a huge priority to get them all to 50. I do like taking some of my 50's out for a spin, which is far less time to level a brand new character on a new server.
- Additionaly, when I want to play one alt, and the time/place/people do not align to my desire to do a quick PuG, I don't want to choose between playing that character or switching to something I'm not focused on just because people aren't around, or are soloing, or on their own team.
- Speaking of 50's....with the rise of the endgame, it's tricky especially on smaller servers and at off hours to have people in odd level ranges available.
- I have a group of reliable friends in certain circles, but many of them have a different schedule than I and do not play this game as often as they once did.
All that combines to a VERY good reason for me to look forward to a system that allows me to maintain characters on my main server, in my VG/SG ranks but still be able to team from a unified pool of players from any server for quick pick up teaming when the mood hits, then go back to my server with my same characters once done. Some of the above concerns could be assuaged with lots of recruiting, waiting, and by going to a more populous server, but a cross-server system would allow more access to what I like about this game with far more options without sacrificing transfer tokens, names, SG/VG access, and limited play time just to play the way I'd like.
Cross-server teaming I would see as only practical for the LFG queue, because that's an instance that exists for the duration of the trial/TF.
I wonder if it couldn't be handled like a "fake" server, the instance for the queued trial gets a copy of the character you're queued on. If there's a name conflict (as in, someone else with your name happens to be on the cross-team server at the same time as you) it just tacks on @Server instead of genericing or requiring user intervention. At the end an email is sent to your character on the server of origin with the salvage, XP, Inf, and other rewards you earned. If you have a supergroup on your server of origin then the cross-team server could have a dummy SG for you, and any prestige earned can be part of the email back to your server of origin. You're automatically logged back into the original character on your home server, and the copy on the cross-team server is deleted.
This way they don't have to worry about moving the character into a cross-team server and then moving back. The cross-team is handled on a copy, and the rewards earned on the copy are emailed back. The original character doesn't need to be overwritten or handled in any way.
As for crashing during a cross-team trial and re-logging, perhaps during the time that you have a character on a cross-team trial the cross-team server is available in the server selection. Once the trial you joined ends, that server becomes hidden.
Immediately apparent issues would be:
Is additional server hardware needed, or can a virtual server borrow space from their current hardware on-demand?
Are there issues with character copy that would cause too much of a delay to make this feasible without changes to how server data is written? (I'm thinking of the character copy tool for the training room/beta.)
How difficult would it be to put in place something that basically switches your character for you? (ie, GreatScott on Justice switching to GreatScott on Cross-team Instance without seeing a login screen, or at least not having to interact with it.)
Would email need significant changes to allow prestige to be sent (at least, by the system, not by players) and for the Cross-server Instance to send a personal character email with attachment to the specific character on a different server? (As in the left-most email tab, not the Character Item tab, because the rewards need to be claimable by only one specific character.)
Would re-leveling on your original server (in the event of a cross-team DFB) make this look like too much of a kludge?
Of course, I don't know what they've considered or attempted so far, but I'm hoping the "use a copy, then email the rewards back" idea is somewhat novel.
Quote:
Honestly, I doubt you'd even need to email the rewards back. They would just transfer those from the copy to the original once the trial is done or even as the trial progresses. If you are playing a copy of your original character, there's no reason not to simply add rewards as they are earned on both versions so that when the copy is deleted the original already has all the rewards the copy earned.
|
Originally Posted by ScottyB
Of course, I don't know what they've considered or attempted so far, but I'm hoping the "use a copy, then email the rewards back" is somewhat novel.
|
Save Paragon one more time! http://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index....ic,4877.0.html
Petition to end shutting down CoH:
http://www.change.org/petitions/ncso...city-of-heroes
Quote:
That would be nice. I wonder if it wouldn't require something like having two characters effectively logged in at the same time, though. (The original being hidden, of course.) Like I said, I don't know what's been tried, so I'm just throwing out another idea under some principle almost opposite of Occam's Razor, since I'd expect the simplest/cleanest options (from the user's side, at least) have already been considered.
|
Originally Posted by Zybron1
Honestly, I doubt you'd even need to email the rewards back. They would just transfer those from the copy to the original once the trial is done or even as the trial progresses. If you are playing a copy of your original character, there's no reason not to simply add rewards as they are earned on both versions so that when the copy is deleted the original already has all the rewards the copy earned.
|
Quote:
Because I want to stay on Nebula. That's where my friends are. They just don't happen to be on right now and I want to run a TPN. Doesn't seem to be much interest on here at the moment. It would be awesome if some folks from the other servers are interested and we could go (even if each of our servers individually doesn't have enough interest). No sense in doing 2 transfers (even at a reduced cost) for one trial. Especially, considering I could lose the name of the character I have had for 8 years because of some usurper on Freedom (or even Nebula if some grabs it while I'm gone) for 1 session.|
Originally Posted by ThatGuyThere
Nope, okay, see, right there is my disconnect.
Let's say I'm on Nebula, the "nobody's here" server. (See? You've never even heard of it, that's how few people are on Nebula!) I want to team. I click "Transfer to Other Server", make my choice, and within moments, bam. Teams. Invites. Costume Contests. More players than I can shake an Endurance bar at. I have my bit of fun, and when I'm done, if I want, I click, "Go Home", and bam, I'm back to Nebula and solo-style play. That seems like a lot less coding for the Devs than "cross server teaming", but accomplishes about 95%+ of the same things in my mind. It does vastly reduce the "server transfer token" use, but wouldn't cross-server teaming mostly do that anyway? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I honestly feel like I'm some sort of blind fool, who can't see how obviously awesome cross-server teaming is, because I can't think it's much more than "free unlimited server transfers". Memphis_Bill - Valid points, I suppose. But again, those can be addressed by making those properties "sticky" when you click "transfer to other server" button. |
The best solution, have the LFG be cross server to resolve just this situation. Basically, want it comes down to is that server transfers are not a solution to team building on lower population servers. Instead are great for permanent moves. They are a solution to a different issue, the desire to change the server a character resides on (which granted could be because someone dislikes that they are on a low population server because teaming is more difficult).
Now to address the part I bolded. What you are describing is a possible implementation of cross-server teaming if you come down to it. Like you said it accomplishes most of what is desired (though I would put it at a lower percentage). But, IMO, an inelegant simply for the sake being "easier" on the development team and one that is significantly more burdensome on the user. So, you might be thinking what are the burdens. I'll tell you. Rather than bebopping along on Nebula which in the queue maybe organizing over the LFG channel and starting once we have enough, your system requires me to do the follow.
1) Know all of the server global channels on which Trials and TFs are organized on and subscribe to them. Heaven help you if you are a freem or fremium without access to Globals. Obviously, in my scenario I do since I am clearly a VIP looking for an iTrial.
2) Either keep tabs on each one to determine what if anything is forming or organize it myself possibly on each server depending on luck that some one is interested in a TPN.
3) Log out to character select.
4) Do the transfer.
5) Wait for the transfer to complete
6) Get to the launch zone
7) Do the trial
8) Go home.
Why is cross teaming awesome compared to what is possible even today? Because it does not get in my way.
--Rad
/whereami:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ThatGuyThere
Nope, okay, see, right there is my disconnect.
Let's say I'm on Nebula, the "nobody's here" server. (See? You've never even heard of it, that's how few people are on Nebula!) I want to team. I click "Transfer to Other Server", make my choice, and within moments, bam. Teams. Invites. Costume Contests. More players than I can shake an Endurance bar at. I have my bit of fun, and when I'm done, if I want, I click, "Go Home", and bam, I'm back to Nebula and solo-style play. That seems like a lot less coding for the Devs than "cross server teaming", but accomplishes about 95%+ of the same things in my mind. It does vastly reduce the "server transfer token" use, but wouldn't cross-server teaming mostly do that anyway? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I honestly feel like I'm some sort of blind fool, who can't see how obviously awesome cross-server teaming is, because I can't think it's much more than "free unlimited server transfers". Memphis_Bill - Valid points, I suppose. But again, those can be addressed by making those properties "sticky" when you click "transfer to other server" button. |
Currently transfers break SG links. Meaning that if you move over to another server, you have to recruit yourself back in somehow when you come back. You also lose your member date and prestige count.
Worse, there's no guarantee your name will be free when you transfer.
I don't want to take Hyperstrike, move him to "Nebula" only to find there's a Hyperstrike already there and I have to rename him. Or worse, have someone snatch Hyperstrike from me on my "home" server while I'm away, meaning I have to rename when I get back. No, no, hell the **** no.
CST should, ostensibly, be a system that allows you to share mission instances with other players and generally do your thing without breaking your SG connection or losing you your name.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
Alright, I've read the pro-crossing arguments, and respectfully, they're unconvincing (not yours, personally, Seldom; yours just made a nice quote).|
Originally Posted by Seldom
All that combines to a VERY good reason for me to look forward to a system that allows me to maintain characters on my main server, in my VG/SG ranks but still be able to team from a unified pool of players from any server for quick pick up teaming when the mood hits, then go back to my server with my same characters once done.
|
Though, I'm comparing "free and unlimited server transfers", which seems pretty simple to execute but solves 90% of the problems, to "cross-server teaming", which seems pretty complicated to address that last 10%.
Comparing "the current situation" to "cross-server teaming". I'll admit cross-server teaming is better than what we have now, even if it doesn't personally appeal.)
So, as I said, the arguments are unconvincing... ...except this one:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zybron1
I would imagine it's quite a bit simpler to temporarily transfer your character to an instance server (such as for an iTrial or DFB) while on that particular team or league, than it would be to temporarily transfer your character to another server entirely.
|
But even so, there would seem (to me) to be a lot of stuff that "cross-server instance-based teaming" leaves out in the cold.
Edit to add -
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
I don't want to take Hyperstrike, move him to "Nebula" only to find there's a Hyperstrike already there and I have to rename him. Or worse, have someone snatch Hyperstrike from me on my "home" server while I'm away, meaning I have to rename when I get back. No, no, hell the **** no.
|
Of course, now as I type that, I'll bet you it's the SG Problem and the Naming Problem that are leading to the Cross-Server Teaming solution, but that seems like an awfully huuuuge (and time and money intensive) hammer to use on such a wee little proud nail.
Quote:
Given that the vast majority of our content is "instanced", I'm confused as to what you are talking about above. The only content that isn't instance-based are the events such as the current Nemesis invasion and random street hunts (which are generally loathed by the player base).|
Originally Posted by ThatGuyThere
IF the Standard Code Rant leads the Devs to the conclusion that cross-server instanced-only teaming (...which leaves a lot of content out, really...) is less server-strain / drawback / downside / whatever than opening up free & unlimited character transfers would be, then it makes sense, I suppose. But even so, there would seem (to me) to be a lot of stuff that "cross-server instance-based teaming" leaves out in the cold. |
What is your definition of a "lot of content" that isn't instanced?
Altoholic - but a Blaster at Heart!
Originally Posted by SpyralPegacyon
"You gave us a world where we could fly. I can't thank you enough for that."
Quote:
See there's my disconnect. I play on "Nebula" all the time and I don't have trouble finding teams, but then I'm a member of several global channels (global channels provide cross server communications) and when I've asked for help I've had people I know on them more than willing to switch servers (or factions) to run something with me. Global channels are a great tool for finding teams no matter what server you're on.|
Originally Posted by ThatGuyThere
Nope, okay, see, right there is my disconnect.
Let's say I'm on Nebula, the "nobody's here" server. (See? You've never even heard of it, that's how few people are on Nebula!) I want to team. I click "Transfer to Other Server", make my choice, and within moments, bam. Teams. Invites. Costume Contests. More players than I can shake an Endurance bar at. I have my bit of fun, and when I'm done, if I want, I click, "Go Home", and bam, I'm back to Nebula and solo-style play. That seems like a lot less coding for the Devs than "cross server teaming", but accomplishes about 95%+ of the same things in my mind. It does vastly reduce the "server transfer token" use, but wouldn't cross-server teaming mostly do that anyway? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I honestly feel like I'm some sort of blind fool, who can't see how obviously awesome cross-server teaming is, because I can't think it's much more than "free unlimited server transfers". Memphis_Bill - Valid points, I suppose. But again, those can be addressed by making those properties "sticky" when you click "transfer to other server" button. |
But aside from that, if this feature is possible and helps the game be more profitable, then I'm all for it.
Quote:
I'm on your side on this one.|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
See there's my disconnect. I play on "Nebula" all the time and I don't have trouble finding teams...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ad Astra
Given that the vast majority of our content is "instanced", I'm confused as to what you are talking about above. The only content that isn't instance-based are the events such as the current Nemesis invasion and random street hunts (which are generally loathed by the player base).
What is your definition of a "lot of content" that isn't instanced? |
Okay, so, maybe it's not a lot. But the loss of the "open world" part would really throw me off, personally.
While "free and easy server transfers" substituting for a "cross server trial system", might have advantages they must be weighed against what others have mentioned as well as the following problems.
Super Group Effects
Since transferring results in you being removed from your SG this poses a number of problems.
Loss of Enhancements, Inspirations and Salvage.
Since you are no longer a member of the super group you will loose access to your items. This would require finding another SGG member who is online and can invite you back AND promote you to the proper rank. For some SGs or players who play at odd times this could be quite an ordeal.
Loss of Super Group Prestige, and Time in group.
It is natural for people to want to show off their achievements of having earned the most prestige or being the oldest member of the SG. If you transfer you loose that distinction.
Loss of Rank and possibly even membership:
In order to rejoin an SG you need another SG member with the proper rank to be on at the same time and invite you. A friend of mine spent over a month trying to meet with her SG's senior members just to get her rank and privileges raised when she had met the prestige and time requirements for her promotion and access to the more secure bins.
Global effects.
Change of community:
This has both positive and negative effects, but it needs to be considered. Allowing unlimited transfers with no cost may well change the feel of servers and cause a migration and consolidation of certain types of players. Examples of this would be RPers, Villains, Praetorians, Badgers, PvPers, etc
In fact an example of this can be seen with PvPers. There have been numerous attempts to consolidate PvPers since at least I9 on too just one server, but one of the big road blocks has been the cost to transfer servers. If players could have freely tranfered there characters it is quite possible that PvP would have consolidated as early as I9 to just 1-3 servers leaving the other servers with NO PvPers. One might argue that freely transferring back and forth would negate the need to consolidate, but that is ONLY true if the issues I mentioned with Super Groups are solved since the importance of SG membership, ranking and enhancement access tended to be quite high within the PvP community.
This could of course be seen as a positive result by many including the Devs since as an example every villain being on the same server increases the chance of finding team mates Red Side. However unless new players are clearly informed of such server specific communities they might log into another server and literally never see another villain and assume no one plays them.
Massive over crowding of servers during events.
On Protector during the Praetorian invasion of Atlas Park when the Devs were involved we spawned 2 instances of Atlas. I shudder at the thought of literally thousands of players transferring their characters to Protector just so they can meet the Devs and get the free name addition that was handed out.
Other reasons.
Eliminates a source of revenue for the game:
Server transfers make money for the game and are used as a reward for VIP. Eliminating them will mean a loss of revenue from the ones that are sold and a reduction or loss of revenue from what ever they replace the reward to VIPs with. If they fail to replace the reward then they will loose goodwill and quite possibly some VIP memberships.
Server transfer don’t allow players to easily find Trial/TF groups.
The current system appears to be similar to the LFG tab. If you want in on an “Underground Trial” you select “UG” and wait continue fighting, marketing or whatever you enjoy for the 20 or so minutes until one starts on one of the 14? servers. If instead we relly on server transfers you and the 7 other solo players will need to hop between 14 servers hoping to find the league with 10 players looking for just 2 more to get started. In this case most likely the league will start as soon as they get 2 more players leaving 5 players without a trial OR worse still the league falls apart since none of the 7 players bothered to check the right server in the right zone or channel that had the league forming.
Loss of Name:
Yes you said “what if”, but unless there is a solution to this problem then it probably doesn’t matter if any of the other reasons I and others have mentioned are solved.
Reference:
Here is an example of just one recent thread dealing with PvPer migration and server transfer. Pre I-13 this was a far more heated topic.
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showt...light=transfer
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ThatGuyThere
Please understand first of all - my request here is genuine. This is something I don't understand, and would like to.
Can someone explain to me the allure of cross-server teaming, as an idea? What I'm unclear of is this: What problem does cross-server teaming address, that inexpensive (free is better) and immediate server transfers doesn't? Assume you could solve "The Name Problem" (which I agree is an immense, intractable mess of a problem, but pretend there's a mythical everyone's-happy solution to it, for a moment). I'm asking because the Survey seemed to imply that cross-server teaming was potentially a Next Big Thing for the game, into which the Devs were willing / able to pour not-inconsiderable work. While I understand that server transfers are probably a current revenue stream, it seems like an absolute waste of time to me. Can someone who chose / suggested cross-server teaming as a high priority explain why, or why cross-server teaming is a "better" solution than reduced-priced transfers? |
Quote:
If done correctly, having a cross-server system would solve the problem of finding a pick-up team at the drop of a hat at the largest level. If the SG/VG problem as well as naming issues, and one could have unlimited transfers, you'd go from having access to one pool of players to being able to 'swap pools.' If you could access ALL servers, you are not just limited to one pool at time, but all at once. Unlimited transfers would be like this:|
Originally Posted by ThatGuyThere
....Of course, now as I type that, I'll bet you it's the SG Problem and the Naming Problem that are leading to the Cross-Server Teaming solution, but that seems like an awfully huuuuge (and time and money intensive) hammer to use on such a wee little proud nail.
|
Player #1 starts on server A
- find things are slow
- Transfer to server B
- (a) find things more populous, or (b) find things are slow as well.
- If (b) is true, transfer to server C
This starts a new problem as well. Player #2 on server A
- they want to team, but things are even slower with player #1 gone.
- Transfer to server C, since it is the busiest populous at the moment.
I'm pretty darned sure that any cross-server system would use an opt-in crowd gathering system of the LFG tab, which means the devs get much fuller use from that system and allow for a much more direct means of recruitment. Example: it's 2 in the afternoon, Player #1 wants to form a BAF. only 10 50's are on, and half don't want a trial. Rather than telling the half that do want to to transfer to the next server for a larger group to coalesce, they all hit the LFG, and every player from every server who wants in gets dropped into the trial, stopping at the limit.
Yes, I know that brings up the issue of a blind invitation system, 'unblanced' teams, and all that stuff that people don't like about the LFG engine. But it does solve any pick up teaming complaints by taking an immediate account of all logged in and willing players at once, as soon as they join such a queue.
Cross-server teaming > having to pay for unlocking the slots to move your characters into or having to constantly play musical servers or having to deal with lag due to excessive screen population; losing perks (like an entire SG), etc
...and it could pave the way for cross-server PvP
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
Cross-server teaming, I support it.
Also, it's one of the items listed on the research.net survey for CoH, so I suspect it's being at least given some consideration.
Pinnacle & Virtue:
A bunch of Heroes - Alpha Team, Legion of Order.
A bunch of Villains -Black Citadel , Pinnache.
Quote:
So basically you're completely handwaving all of the issues that are presented by your proposed solution, because those aren't *really* issues, so that you can dismiss everyone else's concerns as "unconvincing".|
Originally Posted by ThatGuyThere
Alright, I've read the pro-crossing arguments, and respectfully, they're unconvincing (not yours, personally, Seldom; yours just made a nice quote).
Though, I'm comparing "free and unlimited server transfers", which seems pretty simple to execute but solves 90% of the problems, to "cross-server teaming", which seems pretty complicated to address that last 10%. Comparing "the current situation" to "cross-server teaming". I'll admit cross-server teaming is better than what we have now, even if it doesn't personally appeal.) So, as I said, the arguments are unconvincing... ...except this one: IF the Standard Code Rant leads the Devs to the conclusion that cross-server instanced-only teaming (...which leaves a lot of content out, really...) is less server-strain / drawback / downside / whatever than opening up free & unlimited character transfers would be, then it makes sense, I suppose. But even so, there would seem (to me) to be a lot of stuff that "cross-server instance-based teaming" leaves out in the cold. Edit to add - Agreed; that's why I said, "Pretend the Naming Problem was solved". It's clear from you and others I should expand that to, "And the SG one, too; pretend it's solved, while we're at it". Of course, now as I type that, I'll bet you it's the SG Problem and the Naming Problem that are leading to the Cross-Server Teaming solution, but that seems like an awfully huuuuge (and time and money intensive) hammer to use on such a wee little proud nail. |
Why did you bother making this thread if you weren't actually going to read any of the replies?
Quote:
Respectfully I loathe and despise 99% of open world content because:|
Originally Posted by ThatGuyThere
Okay, so, maybe it's not a lot. But the loss of the "open world" part would really throw me off, personally.
|
1. On populated servers it's a PITA to complete your missions while competing with other players/teams for the same objectives.
2. It brings out the absolute worst behavior in some people.
Quote:
It's a major reason I love CoH and hate, well, damn near all other MMOs. I think every other game I ran into the same, stupid "Kill Billgong the Level 15 Orc King" mission, where Billgong spawns in exactly the same spot in the open world every 5 minutes, has the 1% chance of dropping the "Ubre-Sword of Orc Slaying" that everyone wants, and has 15 people Level 45 camping the spot 24 hours a day.|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Respectfully I loathe and despise 99% of open world content because:
1. On populated servers it's a PITA to complete your missions while competing with other players/teams for the same objectives. 2. It brings out the absolute worst behavior in some people. |
It's really difficult to create "open world" content. Either it's good enough to have hoards of players swamping it, bad enough that no one wants to bother, or the server's population is small enough that those few people can enjoy it.
Back on topic, "temporary server transfers" sound great. I mean, if the devs could overcome the insanely huge issues with such a concept, I'm all for it. But, in reality, this is a case of "Belling the Cat": The "solution" just isn't realistic.
Just creating an "Cross-Server Instanced Mission Server" might be a momentous task, but I highly suspect it would be more feasible than trying to allow everyone to transfer servers at will.
CoH has been unique in the sea of cloned MMOs.There are years of possibilities still
in such a well designed, well supported and well loved game.Shutting it down now doesn't
make sense on any level except, perhaps, on some spreadsheet�s bottom line. I do not
consider this an act of a company that has the interests of its customers at heart.This
calls into question why I would want to be part of any further ventures involving NCSoft.
Quote:
I think that open-ended cross-server teaming is probably a pipe dream. Because even in something as scripted as a Task Force still has open-ended stuff in the outer world, and there's just no clean way to do cross-server open-world.|
Originally Posted by Lightbender
It's a major reason I love CoH and hate, well, damn near all other MMOs. I think every other game I ran into the same, stupid "Kill Billgong the Level 15 Orc King" mission, where Billgong spawns in exactly the same spot in the open world every 5 minutes, has the 1% chance of dropping the "Ubre-Sword of Orc Slaying" that everyone wants, and has 15 people Level 45 camping the spot 24 hours a day.
It's really difficult to create "open world" content. Either it's good enough to have hoards of players swamping it, bad enough that no one wants to bother, or the server's population is small enough that those few people can enjoy it. Back on topic, "temporary server transfers" sound great. I mean, if the devs could overcome the insanely huge issues with such a concept, I'm all for it. But, in reality, this is a case of "Belling the Cat": The "solution" just isn't realistic. Just creating an "Cross-Server Instanced Mission Server" might be a momentous task, but I highly suspect it would be more feasible than trying to allow everyone to transfer servers at will. |
What I would *love* to see is cross-server itrials through the existing LFG tool. Since itrials are purely single-instance content, the technical issues are significantly easier to overcome, and that's the biggest drawback to small-pop servers.
Please understand first of all - my request here is genuine. This is something I don't understand, and would like to.
Can someone explain to me the allure of cross-server teaming, as an idea?
What I'm unclear of is this: What problem does cross-server teaming address, that inexpensive (free is better) and immediate server transfers doesn't? Assume you could solve "The Name Problem" (which I agree is an immense, intractable mess of a problem, but pretend there's a mythical everyone's-happy solution to it, for a moment).
I'm asking because the Survey seemed to imply that cross-server teaming was potentially a Next Big Thing for the game, into which the Devs were willing / able to pour not-inconsiderable work.
While I understand that server transfers are probably a current revenue stream, it seems like an absolute waste of time to me. Can someone who chose / suggested cross-server teaming as a high priority explain why, or why cross-server teaming is a "better" solution than reduced-priced transfers?