Announcements

Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2

Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.

It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.

To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.

Putting your kids through college with CoT?

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Putting your kids through college with CoT?

I think the reason people on other MMOs grind and farm a lot is because you have PVPers who have no great interest in PVE for its own sake, and they tend to try to just power their way to the level cap, then grind the most efficient way possible to get the gear they feel is the best to have for PVP, then they keep grinding to get more gear so they can sell it and make money off of the game while also twinking up their alts. The general disinterest in PVP on CoX in the later years was probably, in my estimation, responsible for the casual atmosphere on Trials and TFs, the laid-back attitude you generally got from people, and the enjoyability of the PVE experience all around. I'm trying very hard NOT to say "PVPers are evil and would ruin CoT" because I don't really believe that, but I think if you give them what they needt, in terms of a fair PVP game that's basically a first person shooter with capes, and no need to grind for PVE gear at all, it might be better than just going with the old status quo and making this game yet another gear grind.

That said, I think there will always be people who try to sell gear for monetary gain. I was never good at that sort of thing, but I hope it doesn't become a problem. I feel like it could lead to more gear grinding or, on the other extreme, if there's no great need for gear grinding, those gold farmers might just not play CoT at all for that reason. I know one or two people who have told me "I generally try to make as much money off the game as I have to pay every month. If I can't do that, I don't bother with it." I don't think this is a great way to evaluate games, and I assume it's harder to do that now on any game not named World of Warcraft, but it makes me wonder.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Folly
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 2 months ago
Joined: 04/13/2014 - 13:53
I, as well as a few others,

I, as well as a few others, have already placed thoughts of the “forced PvE in order to PvP” matter in these threads:
http://cityoftitans.com/forum/pvp-what-turns-you-away
http://cityoftitans.com/forum/conundrum-super-pvp

Personally, I believe if you have requirements to reach in order to compete – you should be able to obtain those requirements through that content. Need armor and levels for PvP? You should be able to PvP for it.

As for selling gear for real-life monetary gain, that really depends on how much of a time investment players are required to endure to reach the end. The typical MMO requires the casual player that hungers PvP to also be a hardcore PvE’r, which is extremely difficult to fulfill in the limited time available. That’s where purchasing these goods becomes tempting. Gold and gear are not the only things that are required, sometimes players purchase power leveling services since the main (sometimes only) PvP content is offered at the end!

There will always be a small crowd making in-game dirty deals for real-life money. Actively banning those gold-sellers is the first step to keeping the community clean.

In the end, I think the topic of discussion should be – what creates such behaviors. Not specifically target the PvP aspect. From what I have read, City of Titans plans to make the leveling experience actually fun, something you would want to relive multiple times, rather than having all the goods later in the game. Sounds like a step in the right direction – hopefully they deliver.

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 10 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
[Warning: contains sarcastic

[Warning: contains sarcastic semi-Orwellian capitalization]

It goes far beyond PvPer motivations - the whole system of MMO design and production is flawed. This is because the temptation is so strong to push fun aside and put monetization on the top pedestal of design goals, starting from the very earliest stages of production. Even when this isn't the case, monetization sneaks in, masquerading as Concern over the game's Ability To Fund Itself Long-Term, or a way to ensure High Quality Content and deliver New Thing to the players Soon (TM), or beat The Competition.

It translates into a simple and usually unstated MMO design rule - if the player has Too Much Fun right away, or gets what they want Too Easily, then we're Afraid that Desired Cash Flow will not be Maintained For The Good Of All. Too Much Fun slides down the slippery slope until it is most notably distinguished from "Did you visit NPC to file your TPS report before 4am daily?" by the lack of an hour commute. Too Easily plunges into the mud soon after, and Marketing/Legal goes on Fine Print Defense - "with Proper Exercise and Frequent Breaks, players May Avoid Serious Injury".

So what's their Groundbreaking New Formula for Successful MMO (#827)?
1.) Item X makes your character more fun to play; more powerful, cool appearance, etc.
2.) Item X is made difficult to obtain by the game designers; low drop chance via RNG, a guaranteed drop but only through time-gated or heavily token-gated means, or incredibly expensive to buy from vendor with normal currency.
3.) Item X is made semi-exclusive; the means to obtain the tokens, roll the RNG dice, or hurdle the time-gate is restricted to a small portion of the content.
4.) No game-permitted means is provided to exchange cash for Item X, or if it is, the cash price is set obviously above the value an average player would give it, to extract maximum cash from the impulsive, until the flow dries up...then an occasional sale down to "acceptable price" but never to "a nice deal".

# 2 creates the (accurate) feeling that there's a long path to the next uptick in the fun meter. Human psychology grabs on and implies that if fun is far away, then you must not be having fun now.
# 3 creates a particularly acute feeling of grind - not only is the path long, but it is boring and repetitive.
# 4 guarantees the existence and appeal of the quiet but pervasive CASH4GOLD farmers and their chittering cousins, the spammers. Even average players are strongly tempted to take every shortcut, including exploitable bugs, to lessen the grindy feeling. If the game and the developers cheat you out of fun and cash at every turn, well why not treat them the same? It's the Prisoner's Dilemma gone wrong, a natural human response to a system that doesn't respect the player.

At best, this design strategy shows a lack of trust...publishers and producers who lack trust in the developers to make a compelling profitable game without psychological tricks, developers who lack trust in the players to reward their fairness and embrace of casual gameplay with the money to keep the game running, and players' lack of trust in each other to build a community where we could all have Item X (after a reasonable input of effort) and still enjoy the game.

At worst, it's pure greed and fear...the cash grab, the copypasta design, the innovation that dies in a footnote on a spreadsheet as the startup company sells out.

CoH did better than most MMOs, and was improving even compared to itself in the last few issues: PvP recipes made available through other means, enhancement converters to reduce the randomness of low drop rates, reward merits available from a wide array of activities, reward merit exchange rate somewhat reasonable at vendors, the tiny but promising lifeline of solo incarnate content, no need/greed looting competitions, and the "all regular content playable with SO enhancements" design rule.

[/sarcastic capitalization]
*hops off of soapbox* I hope you, the reader, enjoyed it - even if you disagree.

I cautiously await any Plan Z project and/or a CoH recovery effort that can successfully avoid or break free of this design trap.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Scott Jackson wrote:
Scott Jackson wrote:

It goes far beyond PvPer motivations - the whole system of MMO design and production is flawed.

How does one even discuss your point.
You use highly subjective concepts like 'fun', cry foul about gear, make assumptions about development and design and make accusations about 'evil corporations'. Then on top of that you tie everything together in a way that if one thread is pulled everything falls apart.
I am honestly confused how to even discuss your post as any of it ignores obvious counter points that deflates the entire point you make.

chase
chase's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/23/2013 - 11:11
If you compare the PvP

If you compare the PvP populations for virtually any MMO, you'll find that they all dwarf the PvP populations you see in console or other PC games. The most popular non-mmo PvP games lack persistence (the impact of one battle carries over to the next), "leveling," and different "loot" levels. It may have rankings to better match you against others of your calibre for a fun & fair match, but it rarely gives you gear that will put you at an advantage over your foes, etc. They're fun matchups (though "fun" that can involve death threats and more profanity in one match than the average citizen sees in a year... but still a particular kind of fun.)

You have two camps who examine how to make PvP more appealing in MMO's-
- the first is to make them more like those console games. Everyone gets level x. Everone gets loot y. Everything is balanced against everything else as best as possible. This often runs counter to what makes an MMO an MMO- its persistence, its sense of advancement, and its sense that you've achieved something in the long-term progression.
- the second is to embrace the MMO elements-- make PvP less about the immediate battle and more about the investment taken to get there. The player that leveled to 1000 is rewarded by being slightly better stat-wise than the player that's still at 999. The effort to find the best gear for the situation is rewarded. The ability to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each powerset to make the best build is rewarded.

Obviously, these two factions are in direct opposition. I personally have little investment in this- I'm a casual PvP'er, but because of this casual-ness I'd find myself gated out of the second group- I just won't bother investing the level of effort necessary to succeed. I find that the first group's goals would let me participate more, with less investment, more easily, but I can't help thinking "why bother doing this in an MMO when you've stripped away the essence of an MMO to do this? What's the point?"

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
chase wrote:
chase wrote:

If you compare the PvP populations for virtually any MMO, you'll find that they all dwarf the PvP populations you see in console or other PC games.

I really need you to clarify this point. To me it sounds like you are saying PvP in an MMO is more popular and more populated that in any other game type. If that's what you really meant then I would argue that FPS PvP is by far the most popular and populated. I would almost argue that FPS is not only the popular type of PvP but it is also the place where most innovation for PvP comes from.

The rest of your arguments are interesting and I can see the points you were trying to make even if I don't agree with them all.

I too feel that PvP in an MMO is inherently limited in some fashion (at least until there is an innovation) and have little interest in participating in it. The fact is there are always going to be people who want to compete against other people for whatever reason. A game without a PvP element is not going to draw those people in and a game with bad PvP will lose them quickly. So even if those who don't care about PvP are the majority in a particular MMO, the developers have to consider PvP in some fashion.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
I would say that even having

I would say that even having a *basic* duelling system at the start would be a good step forward.

If anything it can help a great deal when it comes down to what to do for *group* orientated PvP, and what should be implemented/balanced (PvP wise that is).

The other thing to remember is this: SHold powers work *differently* in PvP compared to PvE (ie CC is weaker in PvP/doesn't last as long/you cannot perma hold someone).?

This is where duelling, even before full PvP zones are implemented, is useful. It could also be worthwhile trying to make the NPCs in the game use the *same abilities* of the players with the *same effects/durations* as a typical player. So if the max hold duration for the player is 2 seconds, then the NPC cannot hold you for more than 2 seconds. If its 10 seconds for players, it is 10 seconds for NPC's... that is how I would at least *start* balancing it out.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

chase
chase's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/23/2013 - 11:11
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

chase wrote:
If you compare the PvP populations for virtually any MMO, you'll find that they all dwarf the PvP populations you see in console or other PC games.

I really need you to clarify this point. To me it sounds like you are saying PvP in an MMO is more popular and more populated that in any other game type. If that's what you really meant then I would argue that FPS PvP is by far the most popular and populated. I would almost argue that FPS is not only the popular type of PvP but it is also the place where most innovation for PvP comes from.
The rest of your arguments are interesting and I can see the points you were trying to make even if I don't agree with them all.
I too feel that PvP in an MMO is inherently limited in some fashion (at least until there is an innovation) and have little interest in participating in it. The fact is there are always going to be people who want to compete against other people for whatever reason. A game without a PvP element is not going to draw those people in and a game with bad PvP will lose them quickly. So even if those who don't care about PvP are the majority in a particular MMO, the developers have to consider PvP in some fashion.

Sorry, I meant the opposite- the MMO PvP population is dwarfed by the more "mainstream" PvP-based games. For those that are looking to do PvP "right" -- IE a way that's popular to a HUGE swath of players, you don't look at MMO's very much at all. It is a very different beast where users' aren't given much of an edge/penalty based on loot they earned in other battles. It's more of a "fair match" evrey time.

Then again, if you're interested into catering to the very niche historic MMO PvP'er-- since this is, indeed, an MMO game, then you're often catering to the folk that like the battle to be won by the preparation and planning that went into the fight, not the actual match-up itself. They WANT those investments in leveling and loot to have meaning.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
chase
chase wrote:

Sorry, I meant the opposite-.

Alright, when you look at it this way everything else you said makes much more sense now. I think we are on the same page or at the very least reading the same book in our outlook on PvP In MMO's and out.

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 10 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

How does one even discuss your point.

If you can provide an example - a recently released MMO - which is equal to or better than CoH at allowing a similar casual playstyle all the way to its endgame, perhaps that is a place to begin? I would like to try a game that has anything close to the playstyle freedom permitted by CoH.

By "casual" I am referring to two aspects of gameplay-
1.) the way most enhancements (nearly top tier) in CoH could be obtained through playing the game with little or no repeating of content or "dailies" that seem so common in MMOs of the current era.
2.) the way powers (including very fast travel methods) in CoH were accessible to all players without requiring anything more than leveling (XP). CoH's design did not push the player to repeat content, open lockboxes, or make store purchases to create an appealing variety of character builds that could hold their own in all content.

If the example MMO's design has also encouraged the formation of a player community which welcomes these casual players into teams and endgame raids, even better.

Quote:

...highly subjective concepts like 'fun'

I'm not familiar with any mutually-agreeable objective ways to evaluate games from a player's perspective, so that's the best I could do while perched on the soapbox. I am open to other suggestions.

Quote:

...cry foul about gear...

If you prefer a long path toward gear of slightly below top tier, then your opinion is different from mine on that point. Some players use the term "gear grind" to describe that path, you might not. Please note that I am not complaining about CoH's system, which was comparatively good in my opinion.

Quote:

...make assumptions about development and design...

If you wish to point out an assumption, please go ahead. I can't agree with your choice of words because what I wrote comes from my experiences both as a player of MMOs and as a member of software development teams that faced budget pressures, timelines, and occasional poor management decisions - as most MMO projects do, based on comments from the people directly involved. Perhaps "anecdotal summary" is the best way to describe what I wrote.

Quote:

... and make accusations about 'evil corporations'.

I'm not sure why you'd refer to them that way. Most companies are simply doing what they are formed to do; individual people can make poor decisions along the way, and good intentions may succumb to the pressures to remain operating and meet short-term goals. My bit of Orwellian sarcasm was intended to point out the (sad and predictable) downstream effects on MMO design (specifically on gear and game economies).

Lastly, I hope you can now think of my previous post in a positive light, as an attempt to inject some humor into the concept of "the MMO grind", meant to encourage our COH-inspired projects to be welcoming to the casual player.

[edit - for extra clarity, I am not disputing the OP's point; the design of PvP can affect how "grindy" the MMO feels. I meant to expand on the list of what can cause players to complain of it.]

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Scott Jackson wrote:
Scott Jackson wrote:

If you can provide an example - a recently released MMO - which is equal to or better than CoH at allowing a similar casual playstyle all the way to its endgame, perhaps that is a place to begin? I would like to try a game that has anything close to the playstyle freedom permitted by CoH.

Well, seeings how your post did not focus on 'casual playstyle' and only really touched on the idea briefly I hope you will excuse me for not leaping to that obvious topic choice.

Let me explain why I have a hard time discussing your points.
You first talk about how a MMO is developed and designed with a monetization over fun focus. Then you say even when they don't put money first it later 'sneaks' in and 'masquerades' as concern. I just cannot agree with this assessment. Sure there are cash grab games. There always have been...long before MMO's were the idea to be a MUD. But to make a blanket statement....a blanket statement that implies a level of devious behavior on the part of developers (using sneaks and masquerades in the context you do) ...well it leaves no room for discussion other than to say 'no they don't'. I mean you don't even touch upon the idea that a certain amount of monetization is required, just say how its bad. Well until your latest post when you actually do open the door for that kind of counter point with your companies vs individuals part.

Next you go on to say that developers actively seek to limit fun or slow a players progress to ensure a longer game life. Well I can agree with the later but the former again implies a level of wrongdoing. First fun is subjective. There isn't a way to measure it so how does someone limit it on a large scale without draconian actions. Second, do you really think someone sits down and thinks...my game needs to be less fun so people will play it longer?

You go on to make points in that the only new innovation in MMO design is gear... specifically the distribution of gear. First, gear is not new in games. Nor is the idea of how to distribute it. I do see your point that the overabundance of gear driven endgame content is not exactly original. The point gets jumbled when you start saying things like 'fun meter' and 'not having fun yet'. You make some good points but when those points are tied to the concept of fun the way you do.....I mean how do I discuss it without either ignoreing that or just saying 'I don't agree'
You also explain the results of each path to gear but only pay lip service to the path itself...and then its only to say its boring and repetitive. Forgetting how many developers are consistently trying to make that repetition more enjoyable....just one way they do this is a variety of tasks, another is to make the task as interesting as possible.

Then you put the blame squarely on the shoulders of producers and developers with the 'at best'/'at worst' points you make. You don't consider players are at least partially at fault. You give a player a free pass when you state that its the developers fault for not trusting us. As if it is not us who scream for gear then cry when the devs put any restrictions on it. In essence you cry 'evil corporation' forgetting they were the one who made the game you like to begin with.

That's why its so hard to discuss your points, even the ones I can almost agree with. You say A leads to B which leads to C. Money to limiting fun to gear. If I disagree with any part the rest gets ignored. Your use of 'fun' in the context you do...like its something that can be measured and distributed...I can't understand that. When you just cry foul about gear without looking at why its there or any positive aspect of gear. The assumptions that the sole reason a game makes bad decisions is money or that at best no one trusts anyone. Maybe I'm a bit more optimistic. The fact that everything in your post is tied to 'its the devs or producers fault' says 'evil corporation' to me. That's why I asked you how do I respond....I was hoping you would drop the rhetoric and make the points in a way that leave options to discuss it that wouldn't degenerate into simple schoolyard 'yes they do' and 'no they don't'.

Scott Jackson wrote:

Lastly, I hope you can now think of my previous post in a positive light, as an attempt to inject some humor into the concept of "the MMO grind", meant to encourage our COH-inspired projects to be welcoming to the casual player.

100% right, I could not see the humor. I still can't. Other than the Orwellian and soapbox comments not much leads me to think its a light hearted post. I mean I got the parts where you make little jokes like the TPS report, Fine Print Defense and innovation dying on a spreadsheet but each of those were to emphasize the points you were making.

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 10 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
Unfortunately you've read a

Unfortunately you've read a whole 'wrongdoing' aspect into my post that was never there, so until you're able to remove that filter, it appears that most of what I said will not make the intended connections. For example - I wrote "...monetization sneaks in, masquerading..." the noun is monetization, not developers, so I'm not talking about people there. And "sneaking / masquerading" isn't inherently bad, I applied those terms because even a game that isn't initially designed as a grind (or to have any connection between cash and gear) is still vulnerable to becoming one, if a casual play / low grind vision drifts off course after release. The change may begin small, and be harmless - monetization is merely a concept, a process, a tool. A tool that can be applied to keep a game running that would otherwise not exist. But sometimes - if its wielder isn't careful - this tool causes players to be disappointed with the changes to the game that result. And I wanted to emphasize that when monetization and gear get pulled too close to each other (as noted by the OP), many players will be disappointed and 3rd parties will be strongly motivated to start selling gold and other services.

Monetization of cosmetic items, for example, begins with good intentions and can really help a F2P game, which is why I said absolutely nothing about *who* was involved in monetization and said nothing about blame. It's only when a publisher, producer, or developer begins to apply it to gear that they make a mistake. And please note that I said mistake; mistakes can be avoided or at least corrected once negative player feedback starts coming in, if the people in control of the game are willing to listen and adjust course. I am still talking about flaws in a design process, and would rather fix that process to get a fun, casual MMO game where gear isn't in such high demand and low supply that a growing segment of the playerbase feels pushed toward the "services" described in the OP.

I'm also not sure why you think I have any problem with gear. "Gear" is fine (at least in the way CoH implemented it). Gear grind and the selling of gear or gold for cash was the topic.

There's very little I can do to help you remove the filter you've applied ('evil corporations' 'blame' 'cry foul about gear' - these were your words). I specifically included players as partly responsible in the same paragraph with developers and publishers. I'm encouraging them all to have more trust in a vision that supports casual play (where gear exists and is reasonably obtainable, without the grindy feeling that comes from repetitive content and dailies). Players are not in control of drop rates, cash store decisions, whether to implement lockboxes, how many tokens from raid X are needed to buy gear, and so forth...their power is limited to forum feedback or taking their money elsewhere. Everyone involved in development and testing needs to do their part to build, market, buy, give feedback, and listen to feedback - if they want that casual MMO game to exist.

Not every MMO should support casual play; in fact I think that a few MMOs should have a significant grind for gear (to give a home to any players who enjoy a gear grind). However, I'd like CoT to follow CoH's footsteps - have PvE gear but support a non-grindy path to obtain it, through an unwavering vision which supports casual PvE play. Fortunately, this vision seems to be in place.

My original post welcomes anyone to disagree, since I wanted to share my opinion and perspective, maybe mildly influencing someone to laugh or see the grind from a different angle, not compel agreement. I'll leave it there.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Scott Jackson wrote:

uggh...the TL:DR version (personal opinions)
monetization both good and bad
selling gear bad
gear should be A goal not THE goal
players will grind and little can be done to stop them

Scott Jackson wrote:

- monetization is merely a concept, a process, a tool.

In the context of your original statement ...

Scott Jackson wrote:

Even when this isn't the case, monetization sneaks in, masquerading as Concern over the game's Ability To Fund Itself Long-Term, or a way to ensure High Quality Content and deliver New Thing to the players Soon (TM), or beat The Competition.

You imply that monetization was not only able to sneak in, but was also able to masquerade as something more noble. This puts monetization in the negative light.....its something that comes in and lies about its true purpose. This implies intent, something a concept, process or tool is not able to do. So I was under the impression this was tied to your previous statement which speaks directly of the development process...IE producers and developers. Everything else became tied to that initial statement. Whether I didn't get your point or you didn't make it well is not important, you have clarified things for me so I agree lets just move on.

On the point of monetization....we can all agree that a game needs some form of it. The trick is to monetize the game in such a way that not only fills their needs but also does not upset the player. Now before I go on it should go without saying that no two players will have the same degrees of dislike or enjoyment for any method a company uses to try and do both.

Almost all MMO companys offer some form of what has become know as micro transactions. This has allowed many MMO's to stay afloat or even prosper. There are good and bad ways to implement micro transactions. The two biggest way I think micro transaction can hurt a game is by RNG reward boxes or by offering powerful gear.
I do not like the manipulative way that most games use the rewards boxes but that's probably a topic for another thread.

My personal view on the selling of powerful gear for real money is it can only have a negative impact. Mostly on the games replay value. There are of course other reason....splitting the player base in have and have nots, balancing issues ect. But I personally think that the inclusion of gear should be as a goal to achieve and if it is sold you take that in part away from the game.

Gear is almost exclusively found in the upper levels of MMO's and is considered to be part of the endgame. When used right it offers a goal for those players who have completed the content in attempt to keep them interested and thus paying for the game in some fashion. It is not the only way to keep a player engaged just one of them. The focus in my opinion should not be on gear in any way. A TF should not be made to 'challenge' those who have the gear, PvP should not allow PvE gear to be used and the most powerful gear should not be used to balance any other aspect of the game. What I mean is that if your main purpose to get the gear is so you can get more gear then something is wrong.

When used wrong the gear itself stops being a goal to strive for and become a required item so the character can compete or in some cases even participate. A game like Neverwinter was ruined for me by its gear focus. In that game not only do character have the ability to check their own and others gear rating (yes Neverwinter actually puts a numerical value on gear) but all of the endgame content requires a minimum gear rating. To even participate in an aspect of a game you need a minimum gear rating.

In regards to the grind for the gear. I personally find that the 'grind' only feels like a grind because it is done in exclusion to other aspects of the game. If a player engages in an activity over and over again just to get the next gear item then it will stop being something they enjoy. That is in the hands of the player and a player will do whatever they wish to do regardless of how gear is used in the game.

The game can help a player with this is a few ways, ease of acquiring the item, more ways to get the item or offer other activities that do not require the item. Some have more benefits than others in my opinion but still the fact is regardless of how gear is used in a game people will choose how much they will focus on getting it. So either gear will have to be removed, limited in some fashion or those who want the gear will have to expect some measure of the grind.

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 10 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
I think i can agree with the

I think i can agree with the overwhelming majority of what you wrote. Thus I'll clarify my thoughts on only one piece:

islandtrevor72 wrote:

players will grind and little can be done to stop them

Most players will repeat some content, that much is true. Usually I see it called "farming" (which to me is not a negative term), and I think it can be split into "enjoyable farming" and "grindy" farming. "Grindy" to me means that I cannot obtain Item X without repeating Content Y so many times that the experience no longer appeals...in other words, a player really wishes to be getting those rewards at least a little faster, or while experiencing more variety, or while playing more enjoyable content. Personally, I stop grinding Content Y at the instant Item X is obtained, or if I discover that Item X is not worth that grind; therefore it is very easy for a game's design to prevent me from doing what I call grinding, or stop me once I start.

For me, an example of repeated non-grindy content was the ITF. I really enjoyed that task force. Sure, I repeated it quite a bit, and often I did it partly to get the merit or incarnate component reward...but that wasn't my only motivation - it was simply fun to experience the various ways that my characters played and the various teams that form to do the content. I also had choices - alternative ways to get those rewards, so I could vary my experiences with very little decrease in my rate of progress toward Item X. Even after obtaining Item X, I continued to join ITFs.

A somewhat contrasting example would be the Synapse TF. It had its good points, but the sameness of the many missions left me wishing for greater variety. We were fortunate that the task force only had to be run once per character to obtain the badge and TFC accolade, and that merits could be earned from so many other sources. Thus CoH avoided a "grindy" feeling for me here as well; not because the content itself was particularly fun, but because it was designed to only require one completion to get Item X. My only reason to repeat Synapse's TF on a given character was to help friends or pickup groups of newbie players.

Example 3 - The BAF and Lambda trials, soon after they were released. Since there were no reasonable alternative paths to obtain rare and very rare components, content variety was limited. The randomness of the reward meant that most players needed multiple attempts, often dozens, to obtain Item X. Although it depended on how much the individual players enjoyed the trials and the (sometimes cumbersome) process of forming the league, it was fairly common to hear complaints of a grindy feeling. I tolerated the "grind" here, eventually completing 518 BAFs and 371 Lambdas, due to the significant benefits provided by Item X, and the fact that the gameplay was at least made a little diverse by the variety within each league. I would still call it a grind, according to my earlier definition, and I stopped running those trials on each character at the earliest opportunity after getting Item X.

Final example - the PvP +3% Def IO. Initially this was only found by random drop in PvP and purchase at the auction house for significant Inf. I chose not to pursue it actively as either path would have felt grindy to me - far more than I could accept in exchange for the benefit of this Item X. However, the CoH devs created several alternate paths later, and those could be pursued efficiently with only moderate content repeats (and thus an acceptable level of grind). A further change was made by the devs, in the form of the enhancement converters, which put its rarity more under the players' control, and resolved all remaining concern on my part - there was no more grindy feeling attached to it.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Before I get into my thought

Before I get into my thought I would like it understood that grind is not just the repeating of content, its the repeating of content with the intent of getting a reward. There is no good grind or bad grind other than how we personally view it.

Scott Jackson wrote:

Most players will repeat some content, that much is true. Usually I see it called "farming" (which to me is not a negative term), and I think it can be split into "enjoyable farming" and "grindy" farming. "Grindy" to me means that I cannot obtain Item X without repeating Content Y so many times that the experience no longer appeals...in other words, a player really wishes to be getting those rewards at least a little faster, or while experiencing more variety, or while playing more enjoyable content. Personally, I stop grinding Content Y at the instant Item X is obtained, or if I discover that Item X is not worth that grind; therefore it is very easy for a game's design to prevent me from doing what I call grinding, or stop me once I start.

That's just it though...its a personal choice you make. You take the same things into consideration that everyone else does in deciding to grind. Item X's value, how much grinding to get Item X, ect. That's where the issue lie...you may place a higher value on Item X than I do so how much grinding you are willing to put up with would be higher than how much I would. It may be easy for the devs to provide an answer that works for you but it may not work for me.
Just looking at your example of 518 BAF runs....to me that makes absolutely no sense. I don't think I went past 10 (I will go into the incarnate stuff in a second). So you say its too grindy because it required 518 times to get what you wanted and I say its too grindy because I did it 10 times. How does a dev provide a solution that works for us both? Obviously we would probably be considered the extremes in this situation but I hope people can look at that and understand that there can be a fairly significant difference in how an individual views grinding.

You bring up your like of the ITF vs your disinterest in Synapse. It actually goes to point I am making. When you did the ITF it was not to get the rewards, it was because you enjoyed it. Then, if I understand your implied statement' you say you did not do Synapse beyond getting the reward (the badge). In essence your reason for doing each differed. One for fun (mostly not only) the other for the reward (mostly not only). A simple fix to this would be to just make Synapse more fun....but how do you quantify fun? Whats fun for you isn't fun for me and vice versa.

So to complete the point I am trying to make....the reason why someone will grind, how much they will grind and the ways to lessen the feeling of the grind are personal choices. The devs can offer variety or interesting content but the fact is how an individual feels about the grind is personal.

About the Incarnate system. Hooboy....It should go without saying but what follows is 100% a personal opinion.
I personally feel that the incarnate system was the worst aspect of the game. It fully embraced what I consider the bad application of gear in the game. Just to repeat....the worst way gear can be used in a game is to focus on it. Some may argue that the incarnate was not gear but instead falls in line with powers, that's fine but my view is that the way to unlock and progress in the incarnates was exactly how one would aquire gear so I consider it gear.

First the powers in the incarnate system affected the character too much. The bonuses were so large they made much of non-incarnate encounters trivial.
Second the incarnate bonuses were required to participate in some of the content.
Too much focus was spent on incarnates....it acted as a trap for both players and devs. The devs had to keep providing content for those with incarnate bonuses lest they get bored and the players had to keep getting the new incarnate bonuses to keep seeing new stuff. Take what you will from my opinion on this.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

I personally feel that the incarnate system was the worst aspect of the game. It fully embraced what I consider the bad application of gear in the game. Just to repeat....the worst way gear can be used in a game is to focus on it. Some may argue that the incarnate was not gear but instead falls in line with powers, that's fine but my view is that the way to unlock and progress in the incarnates was exactly how one would aquire gear so I consider it gear.
First the powers in the incarnate system affected the character too much. The bonuses were so large they made much of non-incarnate encounters trivial.
Second the incarnate bonuses were required to participate in some of the content.
Too much focus was spent on incarnates....it acted as a trap for both players and devs. The devs had to keep providing content for those with incarnate bonuses lest they get bored and the players had to keep getting the new incarnate bonuses to keep seeing new stuff. Take what you will from my opinion on this.

I see where you are coming from with this, and it is also *semi* why I was half expecting a level cap increase. The fact that incarnate stuff "broke" so much of what was already established in the game for many years (abilities that ignored diminishing returns) painted the developers into a wall.

If they had raised the level cap, and introduced new enhancements/methods of enhancing IO's it could have been a way "out" of this system... but they tied it into future content for the game as well... making a grind a pre-requisite for seeing ANYTHING to do with it. Sure you could drop a newly minted "incarnate" into the harder trials, but that is anything (although useful for the player to get components) they were also basically "door sitting".

Increasing the cap, although it does shift the goal posts for the players starting new characters, it also means that those players *might not* have to spend a lot of time doing the "grind" just to even see it.

Which is why in WoW (I have done this myself) I have never really bothered with Raids in the game. If I didn't do them by the time a new expansion came, I would just carry on past them, and then run them when I have seriously outlevelled them.

That is how I played that game. However, even Blizzard realised the problem with "ever increasing numbers", which is why they have had to do a stat squish on EVERYTHING in the game, so that it scales better. Does this mean that a Level 90 character can no longer easily solo level 60 raids? Not sure on this, but I believe that they have said that this wont change.. you can still do this if you want to.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

If they had raised the level cap, and introduced new enhancements/methods of enhancing IO's it could have been a way "out" of this system...

Could you expand on this cause I am not seeing how an increased level cap and new IO's would give the devs an 'out' of this system.

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 10 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
Grind [your def]: repeating

****
Grind [your def]: repeating content with the (primary, >50%?) intent of getting a reward. Not bad or good by definition.

****
Grind [my def]: repeating content with the overwhelming (~>90%) motivation of getting a reward, while being miserable and wishing there was a better (shorter / more fun / more diverse) path to that reward. Player A will avoid grind at the earliest opportunity. Bad by definition, from Player A's perspective. "grindy feeling' is fairly easy to avoid through good game design, unless Player A's preferences are an outlier compared to the playerbase. Synonym - "grindy farming".

Farming [my def]: repeating content with a primary (>50%) motivation of getting the XP/gear reward. Player A does this because it is an efficient path to a reward and is fun at the same time. Player A would probably not do this without the XP/gear reward.

Casual Play [my def]: doing any content with a primary (>50%) motivation of having fun, and the XP/gear reward is a bonus. Player A would consider doing this, and possibly repeat it, even without a reward.

These three are all subjective definitions from the perspective of Player A.
****

It became clearer to me that we've been using different definitions of "grind" - which led to some misunderstandings - but have almost identical thoughts about how widely variable each player's tolerance for repeating content can be (whether for fun & rewards, for rewards & fun, or almost exclusively for rewards). I won't try to change your mind about the definitions of grind, but seeing them written (as above), it does make sense now why you thought I was being unreasonably harsh to games / developers, when I was really only criticizing the most extreme versions of what you'd call grind.

Side note: I should have been clearer regarding the BAF trial runs - that number was spread across all of my characters. It worked out to about 10 BAFs per character, so strangely enough our feelings about what felt grindy when it came to trials might be rather similar. Though I have some differences of opinion on trials, your thoughts deserve to be taken into account in the development of CoT endgame.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

Gangrel wrote:
If they had raised the level cap, and introduced new enhancements/methods of enhancing IO's it could have been a way "out" of this system...

Could you expand on this cause I am not seeing how an increased level cap and new IO's would give the devs an 'out' of this system.

Generally speaking, increasing level cap results in previous "cap content" being non-essential to do to progress. So that means that to do "Incarnate content" stage 2, you wouldn't necessarily have completed stage one. There could have been a story line set up to slipstream it so that although you would be weaker than someone who had spent hundreds of hours getting T4 in all initial trees, after a very short period of time, you wouldn't necessarily be too far behind them.

Now if the *starting* content for stage 2 was harder than the *end* wave of incarnate content, that would mean that players would have to complete all of stage 1 (and the hours that it took, not to mention luck as well) to work through it and then be "ready" for stage 2.

But then there comes the case of gear/enhancements becoming obsolete as well, which is where the level cap increase could kick in. You could add the new levels in as a pre requisite for new abilities that enhancements could transfer to the player. Not necessarily as set bonuses but instead as something that could (in a fashion) act similar to what incarnate abilities could offer.

However, if we follow the chain of thought of the battalion coming along and being the next "big bad" and then after them the dev's had plans for *another* group to follow up (much further down the line), it seems like they would be starting to hit the wall in terms of "How hard do we make the mobs?"

There was only so much that they could do with the incarnate content before the level shifts increase became *SO MUCH* that the only solution for it would be for new players to repeatedily run the initial i-trials just to stand a change. And to a certain degree, the i-trials was luck based progression as well.

Increasing the cap would would mean that the only difference between an Incarnate with +1/+2/+3 level shift and "someone who is just level 51/52/53" is the other abilities that the incarnate had.

Now, you could quite possibly *gate* 50+ behind the initial incarnate story arc, which although annoying *would* make sense....but once you got over that initial hump, you were then free to be able to go along with others.

Sure, you wouldn't be *as* powerful, but you wouldn't be so far behind that you would be baggage.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Gangrel
Gangrel wrote:

Increasing the cap would would mean that the only difference between an Incarnate with +1/+2/+3 level shift and "someone who is just level 51/52/53" is the other abilities that the incarnate had.

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying...
Do you mean that by increasing the level cap it would allow both those who are incarnates and those who are not to be more even in terms of power?
Cause that wasn't even an issue for me. In fact that's almost the opposite of what I was talking about.
Maybe I am missing something I don't know...

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Scott Jackson wrote:
Scott Jackson wrote:

Side note: I should have been clearer regarding the BAF trial runs - that number was spread across all of my characters. It worked out to about 10 BAFs per character, so strangely enough our feelings about what felt grindy when it came to trials might be rather similar. Though I have some differences of opinion on trials, your thoughts deserve to be taken into account in the development of CoT endgame.

Well in truth mine was 10 times over like 30 level 50's. I just realized very early on that the only reason I was doing the trial was to be prepared for the next trial CoX released. I lost interest right then as I also did not find the incarnate stuff very engaging to begin with. Still as you said, we are not that far off when its broken down.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

Gangrel wrote:
Increasing the cap would would mean that the only difference between an Incarnate with +1/+2/+3 level shift and "someone who is just level 51/52/53" is the other abilities that the incarnate had.

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying...
Do you mean that by increasing the level cap it would allow both those who are incarnates and those who are not to be more even in terms of power?
Cause that wasn't even an issue for me. In fact that's almost the opposite of what I was talking about.
Maybe I am missing something I don't know...

Kind of along those lines. It would basically mean that the players wouldn't necessarily have to go through the various incarnate trials, and whilst they wouldn't have the "powers" advantage of being a level shifted incarnate (ie the bonuses that the various incarnate abilities would imbue) you could set trials up to be (if it were possible) to have a level requirement of 54 (for example).... now that could either be the "native" level 54 character, or a level 50 character who also had 4 level shifts (and combinations there of).

Now maybe I might have been wrong, but the way in which I was seeing the incarnate content heading was that the mobs were starting to be more and more level shifted (especially once you start looking at the long terms plans which were revealed in the AMA's, where the "next big bad" threat was larger than the Battalion and then so on and so forth), which meant for a *new* player heading into it, they would ideally have to start at the very beginning (whose content was getting run less and less often due to players now chasing the "new shiny") have 1 or 2 level shifts to do, which meant all the grinding at the start to get the level shifts...

The thing is, is that there could be "side content" which followed along the main story arcs *specifically* designed to bring the "non incarnates" up to speed, at least in Level terms (so the benefits of having levelled up), whilst not necessarily having the *abilities* that Incarnates would have.

This would mean that say in "Phase 2" of the Incarnate content (as it were), would not necessarily mean that players would have to run through "Phase 1" content to access it.

Now I might well have been wrong, and when you hit 50, you had the option to do "Phase 2" content after only running the "incarnate" opening arc, where you get kicked onto the path of being an incarnate... and that wouldn't be so bad.

Then there is the balancing act though... how do you make it hard enough so that those who have already spent hours on the Phase 1 stuff have a challenge without making so hard that "newbies" stand no chance of completing it.

This is the quandary that I was trying to solve.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

dawnofcrow
dawnofcrow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 08:56
hope mix casual Difference

hope mix casual Difference "half" peoples who kickstarter CoT like Difference.

whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich